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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/2/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 § 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 1-5, 10-14, 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-5 are directed to a method, claims 10-14, 19-20 are directed to a product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES). The examiner has identified method claim 1-5 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to product claims 10-14 and 19-20, respectively.
Regarding claim 1 (and 10, 19), the claim recites, in part, “identifying…a schedule…determining…available time…receiving…a request…transmitting…the request…receiving …a response… granting…permission… permission…is determined by the identified schedule”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The limitations of: user device, manager device is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally these devices are well known devices being used in their conventional manner, and thus are not significantly more than the judicial exception (see Electric Power Group, LLC. v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d, 1350 (Fed. Circ. 2016)). The additional element of a “computer/processor” is just a generic computing device. Invocation of generic computing devices to perform or aid the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application because the claim does not
include limitations that purport the improvement to the function of a computer or another technology,
apply the abstract idea by way of a particular machine, or effect a tangible transformation in state of a
particular article (MPEP 2106.05). Rather, the abstract ideas are instead merely generally linked to a
particular technical field (MPEP 2106.04(3)).
Regarding claim 2 (and 11, 20), the claim recites, in part, “generating…information…in response from the manager device”. These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are considered an insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3 (and 12), the claim recites, in part, “determining…in response to the determining…revoking…permission…”. These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are considered an insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4 (and 13), the claim recites, in part, “schedule of the vehicle includes…”. These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are considered an insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5 (and 14), the claim recites, in part, “announcing…time…position…in response”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The notifying step is considered extra solution activity such as transmitting/displaying data. The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 6-9 (and 15-18) integrate the abstract idea into practical application by at least controlling an aspect of the vehicle, playing music/alarm, or paying a fee.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by US20190205797A1 ("Sakurada").
Claims 1, 10, 19:
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])
Claims 2, 11, 20:
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])
Claims 3, 12:
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])
Claims 4, 13:
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.
Claims 5, 14:
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)
Claims 6, 15:
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])
Claims 9, 18:
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7-8, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurada in view of WO2019114659A1 ("Luo", English machine translation provided) .
As per claim 7 (and 16), Sakurada 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 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
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
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669