DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 21 March 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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:
“accepting unit that accepts the reservation information” in claim 1,
“storage unit that stores the selection condition and the importance information” in claim 1, and
“reservation arbitration unit that arbitrates conflicting reservations” in claim 1.
“a transmitting unit that transmits a notification” in claim 8, 17, and 18.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-18 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine), claims 19 is/are drawn to a method (i.e., a process), and claims 20 is/are drawn to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (i.e., a manufacture). As such, claims 1-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1:
accepting the reservation information, wherein the reservation information includes a selection condition for selecting a reservation target to be used by a user from reservation target candidates, and importance information that designates importance of the selection condition;
storing the selection condition and the importance information in association with each other; and
arbitrating conflicting reservations by excluding a selection condition for which the importance is lower in a case of conflicting reservations for a first reservation target.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention discusses accepting and managing reservation information of a reservation target. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is managing a personal behavior of managing a reservation, which falls under “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 includes the following additional element(s): an accepting unit; a storage unit; and a reservation arbitration unit. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
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 element(s) merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 2-4, 6-7, 9-10, and 12-16 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefor claim(s) 2-4, 6-7, 9-10, and 12-16 are ineligible
Dependent claim(s) 5 and 11 further include(s) the additional element(s): an electrically powered vehicle with a battery; a first electrically powered vehicle; and a second vehicle. This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., electric vehicles) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 8 and 17-18 further include(s) the additional element(s): a transmitting unit. This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 8 and 17-18 is/are ineligible.
Claim 19 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 19 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 1. Furthermore, claim 19 recites no additional elements. This does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 20 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 20 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 1. Furthermore, claim 20 recites the following additional elements: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a program for causing a computer to function as a system, when executed, the program causes the computer to function, an accepting unit, a storage unit, and a reservation unit. These additional elements do no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lothman (US 20220301044 A1) in view of Dhara (US 20140372162 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lothman teaches a system that accepts and manages reservation information of a reservation target, comprising:
an accepting unit that accepts the reservation information, wherein the reservation information includes a selection condition for selecting a reservation target to be used by a user from reservation target candidates, and importance information that designates importance of the selection condition; (Paragraph [0085] “at 402, the request component 202 can receive a request for a rental vehicle booking from a user identity (e.g., a user/renter), wherein the request identifies one or more criteria for the rental vehicle booking. For example, the one or more criteria can include at least one required criterion (e.g., a timeslot, location, etc.) and optionally one or more preferred criteria (e.g., a preferred vehicle model)”; step 402 of Fig. 4)
a storage unit that stores the selection condition and the importance information in association with each other; (Paragraph [0088] “The preference information can identify or indicate the user's preferences regarding various parameters (e.g., preferred pick-up location, preferred vehicle type, preferred vehicle color, preferred vehicle size, etc.) as well as identify or indict the user's preference weighting of the differ rental vehicle booking criteria/parameters (e.g., how important is the preferred pick-up location, type, color, size, etc.).”; Paragraph [0089] “this preference information can be included in the renter profile data 216.”) and
a reservation arbitration unit that arbitrates conflicting reservations (Paragraph [0134] “the scheduling component 228 can be authorized to make adjustments to agreed upon terms of existing bookings 234 to optimize the dynamic schedule 230, maximize the number of unfulfilled booking requests and booking change requests, and resolve conflicts between existing bookings 234”)
Lothman does not teach:
a reservation arbitration unit that arbitrates conflicting reservations by excluding a selection condition for which the importance is lower in a case of conflicting reservations for a first reservation target.
However, Dhara teaches:
a reservation arbitration unit that arbitrates conflicting reservations by excluding a selection condition for which the importance is lower in a case of conflicting reservations for a first reservation target. (Paragraph [0028] “If h wants to invite a whole set of attendees i.sub.1, i.sub.2, . . . , i.sub.m, the contextual calendaring system can prioritize intended invitees […] and optionally offer a suitable time that ignores or places a `soft hold` on lower priority invitees.” of Dhara; Examiner notes the available time of lower priority candidates is ignored to make scheduling possible for high priority candidates.)
This operation of Dhara is applicable to the system of Lothman as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to scheduling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Lothman to incorporate the prioritization and ignoring of selection conditions as taught by Dhara. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Lothman in order to improve scheduling of calendar tasks (see paragraph [0024] of Dhara).
Regarding claim 2, Lothman in view of Dhara teaches the system according to claim 1. Lothman further teaches:
wherein the reservation arbitration unit arbitrates, in a case of conflicting reservations for the first reservation target, conflicting reservations by selecting a second reservation target (Paragraph [0123] “the current schedule does not provide room for assigning the new booking request 106 to an available V60 vehicle (e.g., the dashed box for the new booking request 1006 does not fit into the current schedule). However, the current schedule can be adjusted by moving the second existing booking 1004 to V60 number 111 on Sunday, resulting in opening up V60 number 222 for the timeslot of the entirety of Saturday and Sunday for the new booking request.”; Fig. 10)
Lothman does not teach:
wherein the reservation arbitration unit arbitrates, in a case of conflicting reservations for the first reservation target, conflicting reservations by selecting a second reservation target that meets the selection condition that has been excluded from reservation target candidates.
However, Dhara teaches:
wherein the reservation arbitration unit arbitrates, in a case of conflicting reservations for the first reservation target, conflicting reservations by selecting a reservation target that meets the selection condition that has been excluded from reservation target candidates. (Paragraph [0028] “The system can determine which attendees are mandatory first, for example, and determine time slots in which all of the mandatory attendees are available. From those time slots, the system can select a time slot in which either the greatest number of lower priority invitees are available, or the highest priority of the lower priority invitees are available” of Dhara; Examiner notes the low priority invitees’ availabilities are ignored at first and then are scheduled based on their availability later.)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Lothman is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Lothman in view of Dhara teaches the system according to claim 1. Lothman further teaches:
wherein the reservation target is a vehicle. (Paragraph [0004] “rental vehicle booking”)
Regarding claim 4, Lothman in view of Dhara teaches the system according to claim 3. Lothman further teaches:
wherein the selection condition includes at least one of a condition for selecting a usage period of the vehicle, a condition for selecting a vehicle type, or a condition for selecting a particular vehicle. (Paragraph [0088] “The preference information can identify or indicate the user's preferences regarding various parameters (e.g., preferred pick-up location, preferred vehicle type, preferred vehicle color, preferred vehicle size, etc.)”)
Regarding claim 5, Lothman in view of Dhara teaches the system according to claim 3. Lothman further teaches:
the vehicle is an electrically powered vehicle with a battery; (Paragraph [0007] “a battery electric vehicle (BEV)”)
the selection condition includes a condition for selecting a usage period of the electrically powered vehicle; (Paragraph [0085] “at 402, the request component 202 can receive a request for a rental vehicle booking from a user identity (e.g., a user/renter), wherein the request identifies one or more criteria for the rental vehicle booking. For example, the one or more criteria can include at least one required criterion (e.g., a timeslot,[…])”)
the usage period is one of a first period of using the battery for exchanging electrical power with a power grid or a second period during which the electrically powered vehicle is in operation; (Paragraph [0085] “at 402, the request component 202 can receive a request for a rental vehicle booking from a user identity (e.g., a user/renter), wherein the request identifies one or more criteria for the rental vehicle booking. For example, the one or more criteria can include at least one required criterion (e.g., a timeslot,[…])”; Paragraph [0069] “the timeslot for the booking (e.g., pick-up time/date and return time/date)”)
the reservation arbitration unit determines, in a case where the first period and the second period conflict for a first electrically powered vehicle, the first electrically powered vehicle as an electrically powered vehicle for exchanging electrical power with the power grid, together with a second vehicle as the electrically powered vehicle in operation. (Paragraph [0085] “the one or more criteria can include at least one required criterion (e.g., a timeslot,[…])”; Paragraph [0134] “the scheduling component 228 can be authorized to make adjustments to agreed upon terms of existing bookings 234 to […] resolve conflicts between existing bookings 234 that arise due to uncontrollable variables (e.g., weather, flight delays/cancellations, vehicle maintenance needs, etc.).”; Paragraph [0044] “The stations can provide for charging the BEVs”; Paragraph [0045] “the disclosed techniques predict a BEV's future charge level given the BEV's schedule and telematics data. The booking system further controls future bookings for the BEVs by matching new bookings with BEVs with appropriate expected charge levels that meet the expected charge level demands of the future bookings.”; Fig. 10)
Regarding claim 6, Lothman in view of Dhara teaches the system according to claim 1. Lothman further teaches:
wherein the reservation information further includes priority information indicating priority of each of a plurality of selection conditions. (Paragraph [0085] “at 402, the request component 202 can receive a request for a rental vehicle booking from a user identity (e.g., a user/renter), wherein the request identifies one or more criteria for the rental vehicle booking. For example, the one or more criteria can include at least one required criterion (e.g., a timeslot, location, etc.) and optionally one or more preferred criteria (e.g., a preferred vehicle model)”; Paragraph [0088] “The preference information can identify or indicate the user's preferences regarding various parameters (e.g., preferred pick-up location, preferred vehicle type, preferred vehicle color, preferred vehicle size, etc.) as well as identify or indict the user's preference weighting of the differ rental vehicle booking criteria/parameters (e.g., how important is the preferred pick-up location, type, color, size, etc.).”; step 402 of Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 7, Lothman in view of Dhara teaches the system according to claim 1. Lothman does not teach:
the reservation information further includes mandatory information indicating whether a reservation is mandatory; and
when the reservation information includes the mandatory information indicating a fact that a reservation is not mandatory, the reservation arbitration unit does not assign a reservation target to a user if a reservation target that satisfies the selection condition is not among reservation target candidates.
However, Dhara teaches:
the reservation information further includes mandatory information indicating whether a reservation is mandatory; (Paragraph [0028] “calendaring system can prioritize intended invitees i.sub.1, i.sub.2, . . . , i.sub.m into different sets of prioritized invitees based on contextual awareness […] The system can determine which attendees are mandatory first” of Dhara) and
when the reservation information includes the mandatory information indicating a fact that a reservation is not mandatory, the reservation arbitration unit does not assign a reservation target to a user if a reservation target that satisfies the selection condition is not among reservation target candidates. (Paragraph [0028] “The system can determine which attendees are mandatory first, for example, and determine time slots in which all of the mandatory attendees are available. From those time slots, the system can select a time slot in which either the greatest number of lower priority invitees are available, or the highest priority of the lower priority invitees are available.” of Dhara; Examiner notes that non mandatory invitees are not scheduled if the selected time slot does not work for them.)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Lothman is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Lothman in view of Dhara teaches the system according to claim 1. Lothman further teaches:
a transmitting unit that transmits a notification indicating that a reservation target has been changed to a user for whom the reservation target has been changed, when the reservation target is changed due to arbitration of conflicting reservations by the reservation arbitration unit. (Paragraph [0135] “the scheduling component 228 can determine an adjustment to one or more terms of an existing rental vehicle booking that results in optimizing the dynamic schedule, results in opening an available vehicle for a new booking request, and/or results in an ability to fulfil a requested change to an existing booking. The incentive component 904 can further provide the user of the existing booking with a notification/prompt asking the user if they would accept the adjustment”)
Regarding claim 9, Lothman in view of Dhara teaches the system according to claim 2. Lothman further teaches:
wherein the reservation target is a vehicle. (Paragraph [0004] “rental vehicle booking”)
Regarding claim 10, Lothman in view of Dhara teaches the system according to claim 9. Lothman further teaches:
wherein the selection condition includes at least one of a condition for selecting a usage period of the vehicle, a condition for selecting a vehicle type, or a condition for selecting a particular vehicle. (Paragraph [0088] “The preference information can identify or indicate the user's preferences regarding various parameters (e.g., preferred pick-up location, preferred vehicle type, preferred vehicle color, preferred vehicle size, etc.)”)
Regarding claim 11, Lothman in view of Dhara teaches the system according to claim 9. Lothman further teaches:
the vehicle is an electrically powered vehicle with a battery; (Paragraph [0007] “a battery electric vehicle (BEV)”)
the selection condition includes a condition for selecting a usage period of the electrically powered vehicle; (Paragraph [0085] “at 402, the request component 202 can receive a request for a rental vehicle booking from a user identity (e.g., a user/renter), wherein the request identifies one or more criteria for the rental vehicle booking. For example, the one or more criteria can include at least one required criterion (e.g., a timeslot,[…])”)
the usage period is one of a first period of using the battery for exchanging electrical power with a power grid or a second period during which the electrically powered vehicle is in operation; (Paragraph [0085] “at 402, the request component 202 can receive a request for a rental vehicle booking from a user identity (e.g., a user/renter), wherein the request identifies one or more criteria for the rental vehicle booking. For example, the one or more criteria can include at least one required criterion (e.g., a timeslot,[…])”; Paragraph [0069] “the timeslot for the booking (e.g., pick-up time/date and return time/date)”)
the reservation arbitration unit determines, in a case where the first period and the second period conflict for a first electrically powered vehicle, the first electrically powered vehicle as an electrically powered vehicle for exchanging electrical power with the power grid, together with a second vehicle as the electrically powered vehicle in operation. (Paragraph [0085] “the one or more criteria can include at least one required criterion (e.g., a timeslot,[…])”; Paragraph [0134] “the scheduling component 228 can be authorized to make adjustments to agreed upon terms of existing bookings 234 to […] resolve conflicts between existing bookings 234 that arise due to uncontrollable variables (e.g., weather, flight delays/cancellations, vehicle maintenance needs, etc.).”; Paragraph [0044] “The stations can provide for charging the BEVs”; Paragraph [0045] “the disclosed techniques predict a BEV's future charge level given the BEV's schedule and telematics data. The booking system further controls future bookings for the BEVs by matching new bookings with BEVs with appropriate expected charge levels that meet the expected charge level demands of the future bookings.”; Fig. 10)
Regarding claim 12, Lothman in view of Dhara teaches the system according to claim 2. Lothman further teaches:
wherein the reservation information further includes priority information indicating priority of each of a plurality of selection conditions. (Paragraph [0085] “at 402, the request component 202 can receive a request for a rental vehicle booking from a user identity (e.g., a user/renter), wherein the request identifies one or more criteria for the rental vehicle booking. For example, the one or more criteria can include at least one required criterion (e.g., a timeslot, location, etc.) and optionally one or more preferred criteria (e.g., a preferred vehicle model)”; Paragraph [0088] “The preference information can identify or indicate the user's preferences regarding various parameters (e.g., preferred pick-up location, preferred vehicle type, preferred vehicle color, preferred vehicle size, etc.) as well as identify or indict the user's preference weighting of the differ rental vehicle booking criteria/parameters (e.g., how important is the preferred pick-up location, type, color, size, etc.).”; step 402 of Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 13, Lothman in view of Dhara teaches the system according to claim 3. Lothman further teaches:
wherein the reservation information further includes priority information indicating priority of each of a plurality of selection conditions. (Paragraph [0085] “at 402, the request component 202 can receive a request for a rental vehicle booking from a user identity (e.g., a user/renter), wherein the request identifies one or more criteria for the rental vehicle booking. For example, the one or more criteria can include at least one required criterion (e.g., a timeslot, location, etc.) and optionally one or more preferred criteria (e.g., a preferred vehicle model)”; Paragraph [0088] “The preference information can identify or indicate the user's preferences regarding various parameters (e.g., preferred pick-up location, preferred vehicle type, preferred vehicle color, preferred vehicle size, etc.) as well as identify or indict the user's preference weighting of the differ rental vehicle booking criteria/parameters (e.g., how important is the preferred pick-up location, type, color, size, etc.).”; step 402 of Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 14, Lothman in view of Dhara teaches the system according to claim 4. Lothman further teaches:
wherein the reservation information further includes priority information indicating priority of each of a plurality of selection conditions. (Paragraph [0085] “at 402, the request component 202 can receive a request for a rental vehicle booking from a user identity (e.g., a user/renter), wherein the request identifies one or more criteria for the rental vehicle booking. For example, the one or more criteria can include at least one required criterion (e.g., a timeslot, location, etc.) and optionally one or more preferred criteria (e.g., a preferred vehicle model)”; Paragraph [0088] “The preference information can identify or indicate the user's preferences regarding various parameters (e.g., preferred pick-up location, preferred vehicle type, preferred vehicle color, preferred vehicle size, etc.) as well as identify or indict the user's preference weighting of the differ rental vehicle booking criteria/parameters (e.g., how important is the preferred pick-up location, type, color, size, etc.).”; step 402 of Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 15, Lothman teaches the system according to claim 2. Lothman does not teach:
the reservation information further includes mandatory information indicating whether a reservation is mandatory; and
when the reservation information includes the mandatory information indicating a fact that a reservation is not mandatory, the reservation arbitration unit does not assign a reservation target to a user if a reservation target that satisfies the selection condition is not among reservation target candidates.
However, Dhara teaches:
the reservation information further includes mandatory information indicating whether a reservation is mandatory; (Paragraph [0028] “calendaring system can prioritize intended invitees i.sub.1, i.sub.2, . . . , i.sub.m into different sets of prioritized invitees based on contextual awareness […] The system can determine which attendees are mandatory first” of Dhara) and
when the reservation information includes the mandatory information indicating a fact that a reservation is not mandatory, the reservation arbitration unit does not assign a reservation target to a user if a reservation target that satisfies the selection condition is not among reservation target candidates. (Paragraph [0028] “The system can determine which attendees are mandatory first, for example, and determine time slots in which all of the mandatory attendees are available. From those time slots, the system can select a time slot in which either the greatest number of lower priority invitees are available, or the highest priority of the lower priority invitees are available.” of Dhara; Examiner notes that non mandatory invitees are not scheduled if the selected time slot does not work for them.)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Lothman is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Lothman teaches the system according to claim 3. Lothman does not teach:
the reservation information further includes mandatory information indicating whether a reservation is mandatory; and
when the reservation information includes the mandatory information indicating a fact that a reservation is not mandatory, the reservation arbitration unit does not assign a reservation target to a user if a reservation target that satisfies the selection condition is not among reservation target candidates.
However, Dhara teaches:
the reservation information further includes mandatory information indicating whether a reservation is mandatory; (Paragraph [0028] “calendaring system can prioritize intended invitees i.sub.1, i.sub.2, . . . , i.sub.m into different sets of prioritized invitees based on contextual awareness […] The system can determine which attendees are mandatory first” of Dhara) and
when the reservation information includes the mandatory information indicating a fact that a reservation is not mandatory, the reservation arbitration unit does not assign a reservation target to a user if a reservation target that satisfies the selection condition is not among reservation target candidates. (Paragraph [0028] “The system can determine which attendees are mandatory first, for example, and determine time slots in which all of the mandatory attendees are available. From those time slots, the system can select a time slot in which either the greatest number of lower priority invitees are available, or the highest priority of the lower priority invitees are available.” of Dhara; Examiner notes that non mandatory invitees are not scheduled if the selected time slot does not work for them.)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Lothman is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Lothman in view of Dhara teaches the system according to claim 2. Lothman further teaches:
a transmitting unit that transmits a notification indicating that a reservation target has been changed to a user for whom the reservation target has been changed, when the reservation target is changed due to arbitration of conflicting reservations by the reservation arbitration unit. (Paragraph [0135] “the scheduling component 228 can determine an adjustment to one or more terms of an existing rental vehicle booking that results in optimizing the dynamic schedule, results in opening an available vehicle for a new booking request, and/or results in an ability to fulfil a requested change to an existing booking. The incentive component 904 can further provide the user of the existing booking with a notification/prompt asking the user if they would accept the adjustment”)
Regarding claim 18, Lothman in view of Dhara teaches the system according to claim 3. Lothman further teaches:
a transmitting unit that transmits a notification indicating that a reservation target has been changed to a user for whom the reservation target has been changed, when the reservation target is changed due to arbitration of conflicting reservations by the reservation arbitration unit. (Paragraph [0135] “the scheduling component 228 can determine an adjustment to one or more terms of an existing rental vehicle booking that results in optimizing the dynamic schedule, results in opening an available vehicle for a new booking request, and/or results in an ability to fulfil a requested change to an existing booking. The incentive component 904 can further provide the user of the existing booking with a notification/prompt asking the user if they would accept the adjustment”)
Claim 19:
Claim(s) 19 is/are directed to a method. Claim(s) 19 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 1, which are directed towards a system. Claim(s) 19 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 1.
Claim 20:
Claim(s) 20 is/are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Claim(s) 20 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 1, which are directed towards a system. Claim(s) 20 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 1. Claim 20 further recites a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a program for causing a computer to function as a system that accepts and manages reservation information of a reservation target, when executed, the program causes the computer to function (see paragraph [0066] of Lothman).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571) 272-6782. 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.
/DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628