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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2-20 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/01/2025, with respect to the double patenting rejection has been considered and is persuasive. Examiner has withdrawn the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/01/2025, with respect to the 101 rejection has been considered and is persuasive. Examiner has withdrawn the rejection.
Even though the limitation of the independent claims recite concepts that under the broadest reasonable interpretation are certain methods of organizing human activity, the additional elements when considered in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims now apply/use the judicial exception in some other 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 and provide a technical solution to a technical problem (i.e. namely, determining a distance between the transportation requestor device based on a signal strength, and automatically unlocking the vehicle to enable operation in response to determining that the signal strength between the transportation requestor device and the vehicle is higher than a predetermined threshold.).
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/01/2025 with respect to the art rejection has been considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 10-11, that VanderZanden merely discloses sending an unlock command to the vehicle upon receiving information from a mobile app instance associated with a corresponding device and/or user.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While VanderZanden does not teach the entire final limitation of the independent claim, it does teach in par. 0181, that the mobile app provides user geo-location data to a backend server that tracks the user's movement toward a location in which a vehicle the user intends to ride (e.g., one the user has already rented and/or reserved) and as the user nears the vehicle the physical lock is unlocked, which requiring any explicit input from the user, so that the vehicle is ready for use the moment the user arrives. This paragraph of VanderZanden shows that the vehicle is allocated but locked and the lock is unlocked without* requiring any explicit input from the user based on their location/movement to the vehicle. In Par. 0111, VanderZanden teaches that this locking/unlocking distance is based upon a threshold. The new limitations are taught by VanderZanden in view of Wang.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The final limitation in the independent claims recited a predetermining threshold instead of a predetermined threshold. This appears to be a typographical error. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the limitation as such.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5-8 and 19 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 5 and 19 recite “…a third-party transportation provider device that travels in proximity to the transportation requestor device and the vehicle.” However, the term “proximity” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximity” 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 is unclear as to how a third-party transportation provider device travels in proximity to the transportation requestor device and the vehicle. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret this to mean “within a proximate threshold distance” (See par. 0031 of the specification and Fig. 4)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-4 and 9-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanderZanden (US2019/0324446A1) and in further view of Wang (US20210146884A1).
Claim 1: VanderZanden teaches A computer-implemented method comprising (VanderZanden, Par. 0025), by a computing system associated with a dynamic transportation network:
determining that a vehicle associated with the dynamic transportation network is allocated to a transportation requestor device associated with a transportation requestor and is locked; (VanderZanden, 0079 and 0109 and 0181)
VanderZanden, in Par. 0079, teaches Within the Available State 142, a vehicle may be in a subsidiary “Free” state 148, indicating the vehicle is not currently in use by a rider, or in an “In Use” state 150, if the vehicle satisfies the conditions of the Available State 142 (sufficient charge, etc.) but is currently in use by a rider.
VanderZanden, in Par. 0109, teaches in response receiving an indication to ride a specific vehicle the backend server/service marks the vehicle as “in use” and associates the vehicle with the user and/or app instance.
VanderZanden, Par. 0181, teaches the mobile app provides user geo-location data to a backend server that tracks the user's movement toward a location in which a vehicle the user intends to ride (e.g., one the user has already rented and/or reserved) and as the user nears the vehicle the physical lock is unlocked, (e.g. locked but allocated) which requiring any explicit input from the user, so that the vehicle is ready for use the moment the user arrives.
receiving information indicating a distance between the transportation requestor device and the vehicle, (VanderZanden, Par. 0181)
VanderZanden, Par. 0181, teaches the mobile app provides user geo-location data to a backend server that tracks the user's movement toward a location in which a vehicle the user intends to ride
determining, based at least in part on the information indicating the distance between the transportation requestor device and the vehicle, a use status of the vehicle; and (VanderZanden, Par. 0111)
VanderZanden, in Par. 0111, teaches an indication the ride has ended may be received if the user has not selected the "end" control but…the user's location (as reported by the mobile app and/or device) has deviated from the location of the vehicle.
automatically updating an allocation status of the vehicle associated with dynamic transportation network based at least in part on the use status of the vehicle allocated to the transportation requestor device without active intervention from the transportation requestor, wherein updating the allocation status of the vehicle associated with the dynamic transportation network comprises sending a signal to the vehicle to instruct the vehicle to automatically unlock the vehicle to enable operation in response to determining that distance between the transportation requestor device and the vehicle is higher than a pre-determined threshold. (VanderZanden, Par. 0181)
VanderZanden, Par. 0181, teaches the mobile app provides user geo-location data to a backend server that tracks the user's movement toward a location in which a vehicle the user intends to ride (e.g., one the user has already rented and/or reserved) and as the user nears the vehicle the physical lock is unlocked, which requiring any explicit input from the user, so that the vehicle is ready for use the moment the user arrives. See also VanderZanden Par. 0111 which teaches a threshold distance in the context of locking/unlocking.
While VanderZanden teaches the limitations as cited above and also teaches (Par.0064 and Fig. 1A Block 118) a Bluetooth connection between vehicle and user mobile device connection, it does not explicitly teach but Wang teaches determining distance based on signal strength (Wang, Par. 0051-0053).
Wang, in Par. 0051, teaches the distance between the terminal and the Bluetooth module is obtained according to the following equation: D=10^[(|RSSI|-A)/(10n)].
Wang, in Par. 0052, teaches D is the distance between the terminal and the Bluetooth module, |RSSI| is the absolute value of the average value of the received signal strength indicator values, A is a received signal strength indicator value existing when the terminal is 1 meter away from the Bluetooth module, and n is an attenuation factor of the Bluetooth module. A value of n is affected by a body and a partition and a partition apparatus in the vehicle, and values of n of the Bluetooth modules are also different. A and n may be preset through related experiments.
See also, Wang Par. 0045, a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the Bluetooth module is greatly affected by a distance, generally, a closer distance between the Bluetooth module and the terminal brings a smaller absolute value of the received signal strength indicator value. Therefore, the distance between the terminal and the vehicle can be obtained according to the received signal strength indicator value.
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 threshold distance determination for determining an end to a ride and automatically locking wheels of VanderZanden to include signal strength to determine distance, as taught by Wang, in order to increase the accuracy and safety of vehicle unlocking (locking) using received signal strength indicators (RSSI) and Bluetooth modules. (Wang, Par. 0010)
Claim 2: VanderZanden and Wang teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is a self- powered vehicle. (VanderZanden, Par. 0170: power)
Claim 3: VanderZanden and Wang teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein automatically updating the allocation status of the vehicle associated with the dynamic transportation network further comprises sending another signal to the vehicle to automatically activate the vehicle. (VanderZanden, Par. 0175: activation to retract a lock)
Claim 4: VanderZanden and Wang teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein receiving the information indicating the distance between the transportation requestor device and the vehicle comprises receiving information from the transportation requestor device. (VanderZanden, Par. 181: location from the device)
Claim 9: VanderZanden and Wang teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein receiving the information indicating the distance between the transportation requestor device and the vehicle comprises receiving information from the vehicle. (VanderZanden, Par. 0064: signal connection from vehicle)
Claim 10: VanderZanden and Wang teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving updated information indicating that an updated distance between the transportation requestor device and the vehicle is larger than the distance that was previously determined; (VanderZanden, Par. 0111:more than a threshold distance away)
determining, based at least in part on the updated information indicating the updated distance between the transportation requestor device and the vehicle, an updated use status of the vehicle that reflects that the transportation requestor is moving away from the vehicle; and (VanderZanden, Par. 0111)
updating the allocation status of the vehicle associated with the dynamic transportation network by locking the vehicle to prevent operation based at least in part on the updated use status. (VanderZanden, Par. 0111, 0156, 0159-0160)
VanderZanden, in Par. 0111, teaches an indication the ride has ended may be received if the user has not selected the "end" control but…the user's location (as reported by the mobile app and/or device) has deviated from the location of the vehicle.. the user moves more than a threshold distance away from the vehicle.
VanderZanden, in Par. 0156, teaches locking the wheels…are a few examples of mechanisms triggered automatically in various embodiments upon certain vehicle events.
VanderZanden, in Par. 0159-160, teaches events can be defined and/or configured to trigger communication with and control of an electric vehicle (see Par. 0159). One of the events include a rider has ended a ride (see Par. 160).
The examiner notes since the ending of a ride can be performed without active intervention from the transportation requestor as described in Par. 0111, the locking of wheels when the rider has ended a ride as described in Par. 0156, and 0159-0160 read on the claim limitation.
Claim 11: VanderZanden and Wang teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a message from the transportation requestor device that indicates an updated use status of the vehicle; and (VanderZanden, Par. 0111)
updating the allocation status of the vehicle associated with the dynamic transportation network based at least in part on the updated use status of the vehicle received from the transportation requestor device. (VanderZanden, Par. 0111)
Claim 12: VanderZanden and Wang teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein updating the allocation status of the vehicle comprises sending a notification to the transportation requestor device about the allocation status of the vehicle. (VanderZanden, Par. 0111)
Claim 13: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein receiving the information indicating the distance between the transportation requestor device and the vehicle comprises receiving information that indicates a geolocation of the transportation requestor device. (VanderZanden, Par. 181)
Claim 14: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein receiving the information indicating the distance between the transportation requestor device and the vehicle comprises receiving biometric information about the transportation requestor. (VanderZanden, Par. 0113)
Claim 15: Claim 15 is directed to a system. Claim 15 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1 which directed towards a method. Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1. The computer elements are taught by VanderZanden in Par. 0025.
Claims 16-18: Claim 16-18 are directed to a system. Claim 16-18 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claims 2-4 which are directed towards a method. Claims 16-18 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 2-4. The computer elements are taught by VanderZanden in Par. 0025.
Claim 20: Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory media. Claim 20 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1 which directed towards a method. Claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1. The computer elements are taught by VanderZanden in Par. 0025.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628