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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 6/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. The amendment has overcome the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, which is withdrawn. Claims continue to be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US20240083453A1 (“Caveney”).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 10 & 19: “communication unit” (hardware [0052], [0054])
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190205797A1 ("Sakurada") in view of US20240083453A1 (“Caveney”).
As per claims 1, 10, 19, Sakurada teaches:
A method of managing control authority for an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising: identifying, by a processor, a schedule of the vehicle during an unused period of the vehicle registered by a manager; determining, by the processor, an available time of the vehicle by a user other than the manager; receiving, by the processor, a request for use of the vehicle within the available time from a user device carried by the user; transmitting, by the processor, the request for use of the vehicle to a manager device carried by the manager; receiving, by the processor, a response from the manager device; and granting, by the processor, the user device a permission to control the vehicle based on the response, wherein the permission to control the vehicle is determined by the identified schedule of the vehicle. (Sakurada at least the abstract, FIGs. 12-15, [0086], [0006], [0079])
Sakurada does not disclose:
controlling, by the processor, the vehicle to navigate to a destination corresponding to a type of the identified schedule of the vehicle; and enabling, by the processor, the vehicle to accept and execute control signals from the user device, wherein the permission to control the vehicle is determined corresponding to the type of the identified schedule of the vehicle.
Caveney teaches the aforementioned limitations, as well as granting, by the processor, the user device a permission to control the vehicle based on the response (Caveney at least the abstract, [0040], [0064-0068], [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sakurada with the aforementioned limitations taught by Caveney with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to allow non-owners of EVs to move fully-charged EVs out of EV charging parking spots (Caveney [0063]).
As per claims 2, 11, 20 Sakurada in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Sakurada additionally teaches:
generating, by the processor, information on vehicle usage of the user in response that the response from the manager device is to authorize the request for use of the vehicle. (Sakurada at least the abstract, [0015])
As per claims 3, 12 Sakurada in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Sakurada additionally teaches:
determining, by the processor, whether to revoke the permission to control the vehicle granted to the user; and in response to the determining to revoke, revoking, by the processor, the permission to control the vehicle granted to the user. (Sakurada at least [0149])
As per claims 4, 13 Sakurada in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Sakurada additionally teaches:
wherein the schedule of the vehicle includes at least one of parking, charging, maintenance, or call service provision of the vehicle. (Sakurada at least [0102], [0165]) *Examiner’s note: “call service provision” is interpreted as communicating with the manager/manager device via the user device to send and/or receive information.
As per claims 5, 14 Sakurada in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Sakurada additionally teaches:
announcing, by the processor, the available time of the vehicle and a position of the vehicle via a wireless communication network in response that the schedule of the vehicle is the call service provision. (Sakurada at least FIG. 12)
As per claims 6, 15 Sakurada in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Sakurada additionally teaches:
in response that the schedule of the vehicle is the call service provision, the permission to control the vehicle includes at least one of locking a door of the vehicle, unlocking the door, outputting an alarm, controlling a navigation of the vehicle, controlling a temperature inside the vehicle, or playback of music. (Sakurada at least [0062])
As per claims 9, 18 Sakurada in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Sakurada additionally teaches:
in response that the schedule of the vehicle is the parking, the permission to control the vehicle includes at least one of locking a door, unlocking the door, controlling vehicle startup, payment of a valet fee, and payment of a parking fee. (Sakurada at least [0102])
Claim(s) 7-8, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurada and Caveney in view of WO2019114659A1 ("Luo", English machine translation provided) .
As per claim 7 (and 16), Sakurada in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Sakurada does not disclose:
in response that the schedule of the vehicle is the charging, the permission to control the vehicle includes at least one of locking a charging port, unlocking the charging port, controlling vehicle startup, or payment of a charging fee.
Luo teaches the aforementioned limitation (Luo at least the abstract and “service request includes one or more of valet maintenance, valet charging”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sakurada with the aforementioned limitations taught by Luo with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to reduce the need to hand over the usage right by handing over a key thereby improving the vehicle usage experience for a vehicle owner. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 7.
As per claim 8 (and 17), Sakurada in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Sakurada does not disclose:
in response that the schedule of the vehicle is the maintenance, the permission to control the vehicle includes at least one of locking a door, unlocking the door, locking a hood, unlocking the hood, locking a trunk, unlocking the trunk, controlling vehicle startup, or payment of a maintenance fee.
Luo teaches the aforementioned limitation (Luo at least the abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sakurada with the aforementioned limitations taught by Luo with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 7.
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 OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/TODD MELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights