DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Application 18/940,281 filed on 11/07/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
The action is made NON-FINAL.
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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter) since the claimed invention falls into “a process” (a method for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle) and “a machine” (an information processing device and a system for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle) categories.
Regarding Claims 1-20, the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
… comprising:
…;
… configured to store identification information of a specified vehicle and identification information of a terminal device of an owner of the specified vehicle, the identification information of the specified vehicle and the identification information of the terminal device being associated with each other; and
… configured to obtain an image captured during transportation of the specified vehicle from … via …, and send the captured image to ....
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 1 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as business activity of transporting purchased vehicle to the owner and providing a progress status of the purchased vehicle before delivery of the vehicle. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements – “an information processing device”, “a communication device”, “a memory”, “a controller”, “an imaging device”, and “terminal device”. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 6-8 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein the owner of the specified vehicle is a purchaser of the specified vehicle” in Claim 2, by defining “wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of the specified vehicle captured at a transport base of the specified vehicle” in Claim 6, by defining “wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of a packaging style of the specified vehicle captured at a transport base of the specified vehicle” in Claim 7, and by defining “wherein the external appearance of the packaging style includes the identification information of the specified vehicle” in Claim 8.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3-5 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein … causes … to capture an image of the specified vehicle on condition that the specified vehicle is located at a predetermined transport base” in Claim 3, by defining “wherein … causes … to capture an image of the specified vehicle on condition that a request from … is received” in Claim 4, and by defining “wherein … sends, to …, information indicating a process in which the specified vehicle is transported” in Claim 5.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 3-5 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 3 recites additional elements – “the controller” and “the imaging device”, Claim 4 recites additional elements – “the controller”, “the imaging device”, and “the terminal device”, and Claim 5 recites additional elements – “the controller” and “the terminal device”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of these dependent claims do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 3-5 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 3-5 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites the following limitations:
A system comprising … and …, … storing identification information of a specified vehicle and identification information of the terminal device of a purchaser of the specified vehicle, the identification information of the specified vehicle and the identification information of the terminal device being associated with each other, wherein
… obtains an image captured during transportation of the specified vehicle from …, and sends the captured image to …, and
… outputs the captured image.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 9 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as business activity of transporting purchased vehicle to the owner and providing a progress status of the purchased vehicle before delivery of the vehicle. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 9 recites additional elements – “an information processing device”, “a terminal device”, and “an imaging device”. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 10-12 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 9 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 9 such as by defining “wherein … causes … to capture an image of the specified vehicle on condition that the specified vehicle is located at a predetermined transport base” in Claim 10, by defining “wherein … causes … to capture an image of the specified vehicle on condition that a request from … is received” in Claim 11, and by defining “wherein … sends, to …, information indicating a process in which the specified vehicle is transported, and … outputs the information indicating the process” in Claim 12.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 10-12 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 10 recites additional elements – “the information processing device” and “the imaging device”, Claim 11 recites additional elements – “the information processing device”, “the imaging device”, and “the terminal device”, and Claim 12 recites additional elements – “the information processing device” and “the terminal device”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of these dependent claims do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 10-12 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 10-12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 13 and 14 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 9 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 9 such as by defining “wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of the specified vehicle captured at a transport base of the specified vehicle” in Claim 13 and by defining “wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of a packaging style of the specified vehicle captured at a transport base of the specified vehicle” in Claim 14.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites the following limitations:
A method for operating …, … storing identification information of a specified vehicle and identification information of the terminal device of a purchaser of the specified vehicle, the identification information of the specified vehicle and the identification information of the terminal device being associated with each other, the method comprising:
obtaining an image captured during transportation of the specified vehicle from … and sending the captured image to … by …; and
outputting the captured image by ...
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 15 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as business activity of transporting purchased vehicle to the owner and providing a progress status of the purchased vehicle before delivery of the vehicle. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 15 recites additional elements – “a system including an information processing device and a terminal device”, “the information processing device”, “the terminal device”, and “an imaging device”. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 16-18 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 15 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 15 such as by defining “wherein … causes … to capture an image of the specified vehicle on condition that the specified vehicle is located at a predetermined transport base” in Claim 16, by defining “wherein … causes … to capture an image of the specified vehicle on condition that a request from … is received” in Claim 17, and by defining “wherein … sends, to …, information indicating a process in which the specified vehicle is transported, and … outputs the information indicating the process” in Claim 18.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 16-18 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 16 recites additional elements – “the information processing device” and “the imaging device”, Claim 17 recites additional elements – “the information processing device”, “the imaging device”, and “the terminal device”, and Claim 18 recites additional elements – “the information processing device” and “the terminal device”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of these dependent claims do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 16-18 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 16-18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for providing information to an owner on a progress status of a vehicle before delivery of the vehicle amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 19 and 20 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 15 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 15 such as by defining “wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of the specified vehicle captured at a transport base of the specified vehicle” in Claim 19 and by defining “wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of a packaging style of the specified vehicle captured at a transport base of the specified vehicle” in Claim 20.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these 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 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.
Claims 1-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim; Minhan (US PG Pub. No. 2024/0403945 A1; hereinafter "Kim") in view of Takaoka et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2003/0120369 A1; hereinafter "Takaoka").
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches an information processing device comprising: a communication device; a memory configured to store identification information of a specified vehicle and identification information of a terminal device of an owner of the specified vehicle, the identification information of the specified vehicle and the identification information of the terminal device being associated with each other (See “Referring to FIG. 1, a system 10 for providing a service to monitor a vehicle manufacturing status may include a virtual factory generation system 100, a production management system 200, and a metaverse service operation system 300.” in Paragraph [0035], “The customer information database 311 may store and manage customer information for customers registered in the metaverse service operation system 300. For example, the customer information database 311 may store and manage personal information including each customer's name, address, phone number, gender, age, and the like. In addition, for example, the customer information database 311 may also store and manage authentication information (for example, ID, password, email address, phone number, reservation number, and unique identification number of the purchased vehicle) used for authentication processing for each customer.” in Paragraph [0056], and Fig. 1).
Although Kim teaches obtaining images of the actual work is being performed on the purchased vehicle and the actual work status of the purchased vehicle (See Paragraphs [0070]-[0075]), Kim does not explicitly teach “an image captured from an imaging device”. However, Takaoka teaches a controller configured to obtain an image captured during transportation of the specified vehicle from an imaging device via the communication device, and send the captured image to the terminal device (See “In a preferred embodiment, when a plurality of photographing devices (14) are arranged in the assembly line of the vehicle manufacturer to photograph a vehicle in a plurality of stages in assembly, the information providing means provides a man-machine interface (FIG. 39) which can select a desired one of the plurality of photographing devices to the information terminal of a purchaser of the specific vehicle, which is connected via the communication line to allow two-way communications. In this case, preferably, the man-machine interface can adjust a photographing state of the selected photographing device by remote control from the information terminal.” in Paragraph [0033], “FIG. 22 shows an example of the shipping status query window displayed by the shipping query process (M7). On this display window, the user can recognize the progress status in a plurality of stages from production until shipping of the custom vehicle that he or she is looking forward to delivery.” in Paragraph [0249], “When the user has clicked the second leftmost photo image of the production line in the respective stages shown in FIG. 22, photographed images during assembly (e.g., video or still images in a plurality of processes such as a backbone component assembly process, painting process, test process, and the like) are displayed on the user terminal 5.” in Paragraph [0251], “and Fig. 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kim to include a controller configured to obtain an image captured during transportation of the specified vehicle from an imaging device via the communication device, and send the captured image to the terminal device, as taught by Takaoka since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim in view of Takaoka teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Kim also teaches wherein the owner of the specified vehicle is a purchaser of the specified vehicle (See “In addition, for example, the customer information database 311 may also store and manage authentication information (for example, …, and unique identification number of the purchased vehicle) used for authentication processing for each customer.” in Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim in view of Takaoka teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 2 as described above. Although Kim teaches images of the actual work is being performed on the purchased vehicle and the actual work status of the purchased vehicle (See Paragraphs [0070]-[0075]), Kim does not explicitly teach “an imaging device” that captures an image of the specified/purchased vehicle. However, Takaoka teaches wherein the controller causes the imaging device to capture an image of the specified vehicle on condition that the specified vehicle is located at a predetermined transport base (See “In a preferred embodiment, when a plurality of photographing devices (14) are arranged in the assembly line of the vehicle manufacturer to photograph a vehicle in a plurality of stages in assembly, the information providing means provides a man-machine interface (FIG. 39) which can select a desired one of the plurality of photographing devices to the information terminal of a purchaser of the specific vehicle, which is connected via the communication line to allow two-way communications. In this case, preferably, the man-machine interface can adjust a photographing state of the selected photographing device by remote control from the information terminal.” in Paragraph [0033], “FIG. 22 shows an example of the shipping status query window displayed by the shipping query process (M7). On this display window, the user can recognize the progress status in a plurality of stages from production until shipping of the custom vehicle that he or she is looking forward to delivery.” in Paragraph [0249], “When the user has clicked the second leftmost photo image of the production line in the respective stages shown in FIG. 22, photographed images during assembly (e.g., video or still images in a plurality of processes such as a backbone component assembly process, painting process, test process, and the like) are displayed on the user terminal 5.” in Paragraph [0251], and Fig. 22 showing an example of vehicle status display that shows the current status of the purchased vehicle at a predetermined transport base such as production line, distribution center, and dealer in the photo format).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kim to include wherein the controller causes the imaging device to capture an image of the specified vehicle on condition that the specified vehicle is located at a predetermined transport base, as taught by Takaoka since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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.
Regarding Claim 4, Kim in view of Takaoka teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 2 as described above. Although Kim teaches the images of the actual work is being performed on the purchased vehicle and the actual work status of the purchased vehicle (See Paragraphs [0070]-[0075]), Kim does not explicitly teach “an imaging device” that captures an image of the specified/purchased vehicle. However, Takaoka teaches wherein the controller causes the imaging device to capture an image of the specified vehicle on condition that a request from the terminal device is received (See “In a preferred embodiment, when a plurality of photographing devices (14) are arranged in the assembly line of the vehicle manufacturer to photograph a vehicle in a plurality of stages in assembly, the information providing means provides a man-machine interface (FIG. 39) which can select a desired one of the plurality of photographing devices to the information terminal of a purchaser of the specific vehicle, which is connected via the communication line to allow two-way communications. In this case, preferably, the man-machine interface can adjust a photographing state of the selected photographing device by remote control from the information terminal.” in Paragraph [0033], “FIG. 22 shows an example of the shipping status query window displayed by the shipping query process (M7). On this display window, the user can recognize the progress status in a plurality of stages from production until shipping of the custom vehicle that he or she is looking forward to delivery.” in Paragraph [0249], “When the user has clicked the second leftmost photo image of the production line in the respective stages shown in FIG. 22, photographed images during assembly (e.g., video or still images in a plurality of processes such as a backbone component assembly process, painting process, test process, and the like) are displayed on the user terminal 5.” in Paragraph [0251], and Fig. 22 showing an example of vehicle status display that shows the current status of the purchased vehicle at a predetermined transport base such as production line, distribution center, and dealer in the photo format).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kim to include wherein the controller causes the imaging device to capture an image of the specified vehicle on condition that a request from the terminal device is received, as taught by Takaoka since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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.
Regarding Claim 5, Kim in view of Takaoka teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 2, and 4 as described above. Kim also teaches wherein the controller sends, to the terminal device, information indicating a process in which the specified vehicle is transported (See “When the vehicle purchased by the customer leaves the factory and is moving, the synchronization unit 342 may update the virtual environment to reproduce the situation where the vehicle is being transported within the virtual environment by using animation effects and the like.” in Paragraph [0071] and “The service providing unit 343 may support the customer to check the production schedule (for example, production plan, manufacturing status, and the like), transportation schedule (for example, transportation plan, transportation status, and the like), and the like, of the customer's vehicle in real time within the virtual environment... The service providing unit 343 may also place items within the virtual environment that represent a transportation plan for the customer's vehicle (for example, when the transportation is to begin and when the transportation is to end)... The service providing unit 343 may also place items within the virtual environment that indicate the current transportation status of the customer's vehicle (for example, a map image showing the current location of the customer's vehicle, …, and a graphical object indicating the current transportation means of the customer's vehicle). The customer may access the virtual environment through the customer terminal 20, and check the production schedule or transportation schedule of the customer's vehicle through the items arranged in the virtual environment displayed on the screen of the customer terminal 20.” in Paragraph [0088]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim in view of Takaoka teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 2 as described above. Kim does not explicitly teach; however, Takaoka teaches wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of the specified vehicle captured at a transport base of the specified vehicle (See “Preferably, the information which contains an image of the specific vehicle and is associated with progress status of the vehicle contains names and/or photos of operators who participate in a plurality of stages until the specific vehicle is shipped.” in Paragraph [0027], “More specifically, the shipping status query window G-2 displays information that specifies the user, custom vehicle, and dealer, and presents the progress status in a plurality of stages from production until shipping of that custom vehicle by means of graphics indicating the current status, and images (photographed images) indicating respective stages.” in Paragraph [0250], and Fig. 22 showing an example of the shipping status query window that displays external appearance of the specified vehicle captured at a transport base such as production line, distribution center, and dealer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kim to include wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of the specified vehicle captured at a transport base of the specified vehicle, as taught by Takaoka since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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.
Regarding Claim 7, Kim in view of Takaoka teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 2 as described above. Kim does not explicitly teach; however, Takaoka teaches wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of a packaging style of the specified vehicle captured at a transport base of the specified vehicle (See “Reference numeral 11 denotes a carrier vehicle that carries custom vehicles delivered from the vehicle manufacturer. The carrier vehicle (including transportations such as ships, railways, and the like in this embodiment) 11 mounts a GPS communication module 12 which detects the current position of the carrier vehicle 11 and externally outputs the detected current position.” in Paragraph [0099], “When the user has clicked the third or fifth leftmost photo in the respective stages shown in FIG. 22, a map image indicating the transportation route and/or the current location upon transportation by a carrier ship or carrier vehicle (car carrier) of the custom vehicle is displayed on the user terminal 5.” in Paragraph [0252], and Figs. 1 and 22. Examiner considers “photo of car carrier (carrier vehicle “11”)” in Fig. 22 as “wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of a packaging style of the specified vehicle captured at a transport base of the specified vehicle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kim to include wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of a packaging style of the specified vehicle captured at a transport base of the specified vehicle, as taught by Takaoka since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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.
Regarding Claim 9, Kim teaches a system comprising an information processing device and a terminal device, the information processing device storing identification information of a specified vehicle and identification information of the terminal device of a purchaser of the specified vehicle, the identification information of the specified vehicle and the identification information of the terminal device being associated with each other (See “Referring to FIG. 1, a system 10 for providing a service to monitor a vehicle manufacturing status may include a virtual factory generation system 100, a production management system 200, and a metaverse service operation system 300.” in Paragraph [0035], “The customer information database 311 may store and manage customer information for customers registered in the metaverse service operation system 300. For example, the customer information database 311 may store and manage personal information including each customer's name, address, phone number, gender, age, and the like. In addition, for example, the customer information database 311 may also store and manage authentication information (for example, ID, password, email address, phone number, reservation number, and unique identification number of the purchased vehicle) used for authentication processing for each customer.” in Paragraph [0056], and Fig. 1).
Although Kim teaches obtaining images of the actual work is being performed on the purchased vehicle and the actual work status of the purchased vehicle (See Paragraphs [0070]-[0075]), Kim does not explicitly teach “an image captured from an imaging device”. However, Takaoka teaches wherein the information processing device obtains an image captured during transportation of the specified vehicle from an imaging device, and sends the captured image to the terminal device, and the terminal device outputs the captured image (See “In a preferred embodiment, when a plurality of photographing devices (14) are arranged in the assembly line of the vehicle manufacturer to photograph a vehicle in a plurality of stages in assembly, the information providing means provides a man-machine interface (FIG. 39) which can select a desired one of the plurality of photographing devices to the information terminal of a purchaser of the specific vehicle, which is connected via the communication line to allow two-way communications. In this case, preferably, the man-machine interface can adjust a photographing state of the selected photographing device by remote control from the information terminal.” in Paragraph [0033], “FIG. 22 shows an example of the shipping status query window displayed by the shipping query process (M7). On this display window, the user can recognize the progress status in a plurality of stages from production until shipping of the custom vehicle that he or she is looking forward to delivery.” in Paragraph [0249], “When the user has clicked the second leftmost photo image of the production line in the respective stages shown in FIG. 22, photographed images during assembly (e.g., video or still images in a plurality of processes such as a backbone component assembly process, painting process, test process, and the like) are displayed on the user terminal 5.” in Paragraph [0251], “and Fig. 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kim to include wherein the information processing device obtains an image captured during transportation of the specified vehicle from an imaging device, and sends the captured image to the terminal device, and the terminal device outputs the captured image, as taught by Takaoka since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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.
Regarding Claim 10, Kim in view of Takaoka teaches all the limitations of Claim 9 as described above. Although Kim teaches images of the actual work is being performed on the purchased vehicle and the actual work status of the purchased vehicle (See Paragraphs [0070]-[0075]), Kim does not explicitly teach “an imaging device” that captures an image of the specified/purchased vehicle. However, Takaoka teaches wherein the information processing device causes the imaging device to capture an image of the specified vehicle on condition that the specified vehicle is located at a predetermined transport base (See “In a preferred embodiment, when a plurality of photographing devices (14) are arranged in the assembly line of the vehicle manufacturer to photograph a vehicle in a plurality of stages in assembly, the information providing means provides a man-machine interface (FIG. 39) which can select a desired one of the plurality of photographing devices to the information terminal of a purchaser of the specific vehicle, which is connected via the communication line to allow two-way communications. In this case, preferably, the man-machine interface can adjust a photographing state of the selected photographing device by remote control from the information terminal.” in Paragraph [0033], “FIG. 22 shows an example of the shipping status query window displayed by the shipping query process (M7). On this display window, the user can recognize the progress status in a plurality of stages from production until shipping of the custom vehicle that he or she is looking forward to delivery.” in Paragraph [0249], “When the user has clicked the second leftmost photo image of the production line in the respective stages shown in FIG. 22, photographed images during assembly (e.g., video or still images in a plurality of processes such as a backbone component assembly process, painting process, test process, and the like) are displayed on the user terminal 5.” in Paragraph [0251], and Fig. 22 showing an example of vehicle status display that shows the current status of the purchased vehicle at a predetermined transport base such as production line, distribution center, and dealer in the photo format).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kim to include wherein the information processing device causes the imaging device to capture an image of the specified vehicle on condition that the specified vehicle is located at a predetermined transport base, as taught by Takaoka since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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.
Regarding Claim 11, Kim in view of Takaoka teaches all the limitations of Claim 9 as described above. Although Kim teaches the images of the actual work is being performed on the purchased vehicle and the actual work status of the purchased vehicle (See Paragraphs [0070]-[0075]), Kim does not explicitly teach “an imaging device” that captures an image of the specified/purchased vehicle. However, Takaoka teaches wherein the information processing device causes the imaging device to capture an image of the specified vehicle on condition that a request from the terminal device is received (See “In a preferred embodiment, when a plurality of photographing devices (14) are arranged in the assembly line of the vehicle manufacturer to photograph a vehicle in a plurality of stages in assembly, the information providing means provides a man-machine interface (FIG. 39) which can select a desired one of the plurality of photographing devices to the information terminal of a purchaser of the specific vehicle, which is connected via the communication line to allow two-way communications. In this case, preferably, the man-machine interface can adjust a photographing state of the selected photographing device by remote control from the information terminal.” in Paragraph [0033], “FIG. 22 shows an example of the shipping status query window displayed by the shipping query process (M7). On this display window, the user can recognize the progress status in a plurality of stages from production until shipping of the custom vehicle that he or she is looking forward to delivery.” in Paragraph [0249], “When the user has clicked the second leftmost photo image of the production line in the respective stages shown in FIG. 22, photographed images during assembly (e.g., video or still images in a plurality of processes such as a backbone component assembly process, painting process, test process, and the like) are displayed on the user terminal 5.” in Paragraph [0251], and Fig. 22 showing an example of vehicle status display that shows the current status of the purchased vehicle at a predetermined transport base such as production line, distribution center, and dealer in the photo format).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kim to include wherein the information processing device causes the imaging device to capture an image of the specified vehicle on condition that a request from the terminal device is received, as taught by Takaoka since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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.
Regarding Claim 12, Kim in view of Takaoka teaches all the limitations of Claims 9 and 11 as described above. Kim also teaches wherein the information processing device sends, to the terminal device, information indicating a process in which the specified vehicle is transported, and the terminal device outputs the information indicating the process (See “When the vehicle purchased by the customer leaves the factory and is moving, the synchronization unit 342 may update the virtual environment to reproduce the situation where the vehicle is being transported within the virtual environment by using animation effects and the like.” in Paragraph [0071] and “The service providing unit 343 may support the customer to check the production schedule (for example, production plan, manufacturing status, and the like), transportation schedule (for example, transportation plan, transportation status, and the like), and the like, of the customer's vehicle in real time within the virtual environment... The service providing unit 343 may also place items within the virtual environment that represent a transportation plan for the customer's vehicle (for example, when the transportation is to begin and when the transportation is to end)... The service providing unit 343 may also place items within the virtual environment that indicate the current transportation status of the customer's vehicle (for example, a map image showing the current location of the customer's vehicle, …, and a graphical object indicating the current transportation means of the customer's vehicle). The customer may access the virtual environment through the customer terminal 20, and check the production schedule or transportation schedule of the customer's vehicle through the items arranged in the virtual environment displayed on the screen of the customer terminal 20.” in Paragraph [0088]).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim in view of Takaoka teaches all the limitations of Claim 9 as described above. Kim does not explicitly teach; however, Takaoka teaches wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of the specified vehicle captured at a transport base of the specified vehicle (See “Preferably, the information which contains an image of the specific vehicle and is associated with progress status of the vehicle contains names and/or photos of operators who participate in a plurality of stages until the specific vehicle is shipped.” in Paragraph [0027], “More specifically, the shipping status query window G-2 displays information that specifies the user, custom vehicle, and dealer, and presents the progress status in a plurality of stages from production until shipping of that custom vehicle by means of graphics indicating the current status, and images (photographed images) indicating respective stages.” in Paragraph [0250], and Fig. 22 showing an example of the shipping status query window that displays external appearance of the specified vehicle captured at a transport base such as production line, distribution center, and dealer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kim to include wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of the specified vehicle captured at a transport base of the specified vehicle, as taught by Takaoka since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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.
Regarding Claim 14, Kim in view of Takaoka teaches all the limitations of Claim 9 as described above. Kim does not explicitly teach; however, Takaoka teaches wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of a packaging style of the specified vehicle captured at a transport base of the specified vehicle (See “Reference numeral 11 denotes a carrier vehicle that carries custom vehicles delivered from the vehicle manufacturer. The carrier vehicle (including transportations such as ships, railways, and the like in this embodiment) 11 mounts a GPS communication module 12 which detects the current position of the carrier vehicle 11 and externally outputs the detected current position.” in Paragraph [0099], “When the user has clicked the third or fifth leftmost photo in the respective stages shown in FIG. 22, a map image indicating the transportation route and/or the current location upon transportation by a carrier ship or carrier vehicle (car carrier) of the custom vehicle is displayed on the user terminal 5.” in Paragraph [0252], and Figs. 1 and 22. Examiner considers “photo of car carrier (carrier vehicle “11”)” in Fig. 22 as “wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of a packaging style of the specified vehicle captured at a transport base of the specified vehicle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kim to include wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of a packaging style of the specified vehicle captured at a transport base of the specified vehicle, as taught by Takaoka since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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.
Claims 15-20 are method claims corresponding to system Claims 9-14. All of the limitations in Claims 15-20 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations in Claims 9-14. Accordingly, Claims 15-20 are considered obvious (rejection) by the same rationales presented in the rejection of Claims 9-14, respectively set forth above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Takaoka and AYOUB et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0349501 A1; hereinafter "AYOUB").
Regarding Claim 8, Kim in view of Takaoka teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 2, and 7 as described above. Although Takaoka teaches the external appearance of the packaging style as described above in Claim 7, Kim in view of Takaoka does not explicitly teach “wherein the external appearance of the packaging style includes the identification information of the specified vehicle”. However, AYOUB teaches wherein the external appearance of the packaging style includes the identification information of the specified vehicle (See “The CTU 102 has an identification number 104 which is associated with a TMD 106 ID and stored in the server 116. The identification number provides a unique identifier on the exterior of the CTU 102. In associating the CTU ID with the TMD ID a manual process may be performed by a technician 122 to identify the CTU ID and the installed TMD ID which is stored in the association table 130. The association between the identifiers is used to track and monitor the CTU and the associated cargo but is prone to errors.” in Paragraph [0023], “The identification may be visible on multiple sides of the CTU. The identifier 104 is associated with the TMD 106 having a unique serial number to facilitate tracking. Alternatively, the CTU may be associated with a trailer identifier, such as a license plate which can be used as the CTU ID for the purposes of this description.” in Paragraph [0026], and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kim in view of Takaoka to include wherein the captured image includes an external appearance of a packaging style of the specified vehicle captured at a transport base of the specified vehicle, as taught by AYOUB, in order to make the tracking process more efficient and effective.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lupp et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2004/0122691 A1) teaches a method and device for ordering motor vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYAR M KYU whose telephone number is (571)272-3419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/T.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628