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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/7/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 5/7/2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made non-final.
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.
Dependent claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of dependent claim 10:
determining a time duration from when the powersport vehicle has begun travelling the route to when the identification of the rider is received at the server or at the powersport vehicle; and
determining that the time duration is within a prescribed grace period before storing the trip data in the second dataset,
wherein the trip data stored in the second dataset includes the part of the trip data received before receiving the identification of the rider at the server or at the powersport vehicle.
Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
Dependent claim 10 recites a method (process). This claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of: determining a time duration from when the powersport vehicle has begun travelling the route to when the identification of the rider is received at the server or at the powersport vehicle; and determining that the time duration is within a prescribed grace period before storing the trip data in the second dataset. These limitations, as drafted, and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of being performed using a server and vehicle (with on board data storage). That is, other than a server and vehicle (with on board data storage), nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person determining when the powersports entity receives his ID within a determined time limit while conducting his trip on the vehicle. The mere nominal recitations of a processor / vehicle storage do not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 10 recites additional elements or steps of using a processor / vehicle storage to [store trip data] wherein the trip data stored in the second dataset includes the part of the trip data received before receiving the identification of the rider at the server or at the powersport vehicle. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means for storing trip data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Moreover, these limitations merely describe generally “applying” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computer controller, as noted above. The processor / vehicle storage are both recited at a high level of generality and they merely automate the several determining and determining steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic devices, processors, memories, and/or generic computer-readable media, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the several receiving, storing, receiving, storing, and granting steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. There is nothing in the disclosure that recites that the processor / systems are anything other than a conventional, generic, computer and/or computer controlled components. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the above underlined several elements / steps of determining and determining amount to well-understood, routine, conventional activity and are supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, dependent claim 10 is ineligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.— A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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;
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 9, and 13 – 20 are rejected under 35 USC 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Koenig (US20190265064A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 20:
Koenig discloses:
A method of communicating trip data to a rider of a powersport vehicle, the method comprising:
Examiner notes that … (“Various embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the drawings, … . Reference to various embodiments does not limit the scope of the invention, which is limited only by the scope of the claims attached hereto. Additionally, any examples set forth in this specification are not intended to be limiting and merely set forth some of the many possible embodiments for the claimed invention.”, see Specification herein [0059]), the invention therefore may include a plurality of various possible embodiments, and the invention is otherwise not limited by this or that embodiment, wherever found, and whether or not any such embodiment is expressly detailed in the Disclosure;
at a server located remotely of the powersport vehicle: (“An interactive system for use in connection with recreational vehicle usage includes a server system, including an off-road trail database containing trail data, trail condition information, and points-of-interest information, as well as a trip mapping system accessible by any of a plurality of riders, allowing a rider to create a route based on the data”, [Abstract, published 8/29/2019) and (“The method further includes displaying a user interface to a user, the user interface including information associated with the planned route and at least a portion of the data regarding operation of the recreational vehicle, and communicating data to a remote system from the computing device, and at least a portion of the data regarding operation of the recreational vehicle. The method also includes receiving from the remote system one or more instructions for display to the user regarding maintenance or repair tasks to be performed on the recreational vehicle.”, [011]);
receiving the trip data from the powersport vehicle, (“The server system includes a location data management system configured to receive location data, allowing a rider to publish location information to one or more other riders, and a user feedback interface configured to receive trip data from riders for publication, including information describing an actual route and user data associated with that route.”, [Abstract, published 8/29/2019]);
the trip data identifying a route travelled by the rider with the powersport vehicle; (“The server system includes a location data management system configured to receive location data, allowing a rider to publish location information to one or more other riders, and a user feedback interface configured to receive trip data from riders for publication, including information describing an actual route and user data associated with that route.”, [Abstract, published 8/29/2019]);
storing the trip data in a first dataset associated with the powersport vehicle; (“The database 104 stores various types of data used by the server 102, including the various interfaces 202-210, to generate, along with data providers 106 a-e, services to be presented to users who are riders of recreational vehicles. In the embodiment shown, the database 104 includes trail data 220 used for route planning purposes, which can include routes, property details, and trail condition data as may be received from a club member or third party data provider.”, [078]);
receiving an identification of the rider; (“As seen in FIG. 16, upon selection of one of the icons 1602 on a map display 1604 illustrating other riders, information about that rider, such as his/her name and relative location, are displayed.”, [0113]);
storing the trip data in a second dataset associated with the rider; and (“The gauge 414 receives information from the various sensors shown in FIG. 26 and location data from the GPS input 2044 to track how the vehicle was driven and where it was driven. This “ride data” is stored locally and retrieved, for example, through USB port 12 or the data is sent through the mobile device 110 to a remote location for storage and processing.”, [0144]);
granting the rider access to the trip data stored in the second dataset. (“In the embodiment shown, the server 102 includes a mobile application interface 202 and a web interface 204 that provide user access to various mapping, planning, and on-trail data services. The web interface 202 allows a user to connect to the server 102 via a computing device 112, and register his or her recreational vehicle with the server 102. The mobile application interface 202 provides analogous functionality via a downloadable application stored on a smartphone or tablet device, such as mobile device 110. Furthermore, through the web interface 204 or mobile application interface 202, the user plans a route that the user intends to take on his/her recreational vehicle, and the server 102, based on the trail condition data, confirms that the selected route is passable.”, [073]).
Regarding claim 2:
Koenig discloses all limitations of claim 1:
Koenig further teaches:
The method as defined in claim 1,
wherein receiving the trip data from the powersport vehicle includes receiving geographic coordinates from the powersport vehicle while the powersport vehicle is in transit. Note that this claim does not specify who is receiving the data, thus anything that receives trip data vis a vis geo-coordinates qualifies, including user/rider, … (“A route import option 706 allows the user to import data, such as may be included in a route description file (e.g., a flat file or markup language file defining route coordinates) to be used as a route to be traveled.”, [0104]) and (“The server system includes a location data management system configured to receive location data, allowing a rider to publish location information to one or more other riders, and a user feedback interface configured to receive trip data from riders for publication, including information describing an actual route and user data associated with that route.”, [Abstract, published 8/29/2019]) and (“Displaying text messages, or use of the maps discussed below, or any feature that it is not desirable to operate while the vehicle is in motion may be locked out.”, [0167]).
Regarding claim 3:
Koenig discloses all limitations of claim 1:
Koenig further teaches:
The method as defined in claim 1:
wherein receiving the trip data from the powersport vehicle includes receiving a travelling speed from the powersport vehicle while the powersport vehicle is in transit. Note that this claim does not specify who is receiving the data, thus anything that receives speed data qualifies, including user/rider, … (“The software comprises instructions providing a user selectable menu for receiving a user input to selectively display vehicle operation information on the display of the gauge including vehicle speed, RPM, fuel level, coolant temperature; receiving a user input to selectively display information from a mobile device on the display of the gauge”, [014]) and (“FIG. 21 illustrates an example user interface used for displaying recreational vehicle speed data to a user or recreational vehicle rider;”, [037]).
Regarding claim 4:
Koenig discloses all limitations of claim 1:
Koenig further teaches:
The method as defined in claim 1, wherein:
the powersport vehicle includes an electric powertrain; and receiving the trip data from the powersport vehicle includes receiving a battery state-of-charge from the powersport vehicle while the powersport vehicle is in transit. (“A display of the state of charge for electric vehicles or fuel level of vehicles in the fleet may also be provided and sent to a remote computer accessible by the fleet manager. An operator's phone or other device may be used as a key or security device for the vehicle. Alternatively, a key card or security badge may be used to activate the vehicle.”, [0176]).
Regarding claim 6:
Koenig discloses all limitations of claim 1:
Koenig further teaches:
The method as defined in claim 1, comprising:
receiving additional data from the powersport vehicle, the additional data pertaining to the powersport vehicle and being different from the trip data; and (“The method also includes receiving from the remote system one or more instructions for display to the user regarding maintenance or repair tasks to be performed on the recreational vehicle.”, [011]).
storing the additional data in the first dataset. (“In addition to the data providers and third party contributors, a dealer 114 is illustratively provided access to the server 102, for example to manage, store, and access vehicle maintenance records associated with particular vehicles. In such embodiments, the dealer 114 stores such records locally, and receives maintenance and/or repair information from a vehicle 108 from the server 102, or alternatively stores all such maintenance and repair information in the database 104, associated with the server 102.”, [070]).
Regarding claim 7:
Koenig discloses all limitations of claim 6:
Koenig further teaches:
The method as defined in claim 6,
wherein storing the trip data in the second dataset includes copying the trip data from the first dataset to the second dataset. Examiner broadly interprets this claim language to include the meaning that trip data may be identically stored / copied to more than one location, … (“In addition to the data providers and third party contributors, a dealer 114 is illustratively provided access to the server 102, for example to manage, store, and access vehicle maintenance records associated with particular vehicles. In such embodiments, the dealer 114 stores such records locally, and receives maintenance and/or repair information from a vehicle 108 from the server 102, or alternatively stores all such maintenance and repair information in the database 104, associated with the server 102.”, [070]).
Regarding claim 8:
Koenig discloses all limitations of claim 7:
Koenig further teaches:
The method as defined in claim 7, comprising
omitting the additional data from the second dataset. Examiner broadly interprets this claim to include the meaning that “trip data” is omitted from storage, … (“As seen in FIG. 12, a route management option 1106 allows a user to save or delete the route that was traversed.”, [0110]), “trip data” as it were can be omitted.
Regarding claim 9:
Koenig discloses all limitations of claim 1:
Koenig further teaches:
The method as defined in claim 1,
wherein part of the route is travelled by the rider with the powersport vehicle before receiving the identification of the rider at the server or at the powersport vehicle. Examiner broadly interprets this claim to include that any rider having traveled any such route at any time, which rider is not specifically yet identified, qualifies, … (“The database 104 can also include trail photos 222, either submitted by riders who have previously traveled along the trails, or from a trail photo capture system useable to generate a “fly-through” sequential photo playback that simulates traveling along the trail. The database 104 further includes user feedback 224, which can include reviews of a trail, as well as ratings of the trail (e.g., difficulty, time required to traverse, etc.) as well as notes regarding points of interest, or other features.”, [078]).
Regarding claim 13:
Koenig discloses all limitations of claim 1:
Koenig further teaches:
The method as defined in claim 1, wherein:
the rider is a first rider; the route is a first route; the trip data is first trip data; the method includes: receiving second trip data from the powersport vehicle, the second trip data defining a second route travelled by a second rider using the powersport vehicle; storing the second trip data on the server in the first dataset associated with the powersport vehicle; receiving an identification of the second rider; and storing the second trip data in a third dataset associated with the second rider. Examiner broadly interprets this claim to include the meaning that the system / method can be used with regard to a plurality of riders at a plurality of times. (“An interactive system for use in connection with recreational vehicle usage includes a server system, including an off-road trail database containing trail data, trail condition information, and points-of-interest information, as well as a trip mapping system accessible by any of a plurality of riders, allowing a rider to create a route based on the data in the off-road trip database.”, [Abstract, published 08/29/2029]).
Regarding claim 14:
Koenig discloses all limitations of claim 1:
Koenig further teaches
The method as defined in claim 1,
wherein: the powersport vehicle is a first powersport vehicle; the route is a first route; the trip data is first trip data; the method includes: receiving second trip data from a second powersport vehicle, the second trip data defining a second route travelled by the rider using the second powersport vehicle; storing the second trip data in a third dataset associated with the second powersport vehicle; and storing the second trip data in the second dataset associated with the rider. Examiner broadly interprets this claim to include the meaning that the system / method can be used with regard to a plurality of riders at a plurality of times, … (“An interactive system for use in connection with recreational vehicle usage includes a server system, including an off-road trail database containing trail data, trail condition information, and points-of-interest information, as well as a trip mapping system accessible by any of a plurality of riders, allowing a rider to create a route based on the data in the off-road trip database.”, [Abstract, published 08/29/2029]).
Regarding claim 15:
Koenig discloses all limitations of claim 14:
Koenig further teaches
The method as defined in claim 14,
comprising granting the rider access to the second trip data stored in the second dataset. (“The server system includes an off-road trail database containing trail data, trail condition information, and points-of-interest information, as well as a trip mapping system accessible by any of a plurality of riders, the trip mapping system allowing a rider to create a planned route based on the data in the off-road trip database and navigate the planned route. The server system further includes a trail maintenance interface accessible by users affiliated with an authorized group to edit at least a portion of the trail data, trail condition information, and points-of-interest information associated with the authorized group.”, [008]).
Regarding claim 16:
Koenig discloses all limitations of claim 1:
Koenig further teaches
The method as defined in claim 1,
wherein the first dataset includes data values that are not in the second dataset. Examiner broadly interprets this as including the meaning that trip data (first set) is not part of the trail data (second set), … See Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 17:
Koenig discloses all limitations of claim 1:
Koenig further teaches
The method as defined in claim 1,
wherein granting the rider access to the trip data stored in the second dataset includes transmitting the trip data to a device associated with the rider. (“The method further includes receiving a request from a user device to define a planned off-road route in one or more of the areas, and generating a map associated with the planned off-road route, the map including trail condition information and points-of-interest information received. The method also includes receiving location information from a communications device at a location of a recreational vehicle operated by the user during travel along the planned off-road route, and publishing the location information to one or more other users based on permissions set by the user. The method includes receiving user feedback information associated with the planned off-road route from the user.”, [009]).
Regarding claim 18:
Koenig discloses all limitations of claim 1:
Koenig further teaches
The method as defined in claim 1, comprising:
receiving personal data associated with the rider while travelling the route; and storing the personal data with the trip data in the second dataset associated with the rider. (“As seen in FIG. 16, upon selection of one of the icons 1602 on a map display 1604 illustrating other riders, information about that rider, such as his/her name and relative location, are displayed”, [0113]) and (“Referring now to FIG. 2, additional details regarding the server 102 and the trail and rider database 104 of FIG. 1 are shown. The server 102 generally provides a plurality of interfaces and services by which data are aggregated and delivered to users who are riders of recreational vehicles. “, [072]).
Regarding claim 19:
Koenig discloses all limitations of claim 18:
Koenig further teaches
The method as defined in claim 18,
wherein the personal data is omitted from the first dataset. (“The server system includes a location data management system configured to receive location data, allowing a rider to publish location information to one or more other riders, and a user feedback interface configured to receive trip data from riders for publication, including information describing an actual route and user data associated with that route.”, [Abstract, published 8/29/2018]).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 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 5, 11, and 12 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig (US20190265064A1) in view of Kitagishi (US20140088815A1).
Regarding claim 5:
Koenig discloses all limitations of claim 1:
Koenig does not expressly disclose, but Kitagishi teaches:
The method as defined in claim 1,
wherein storing the trip data in the second dataset is performed in response to receiving the identification of the rider. Examiner broadly interprets this limitation to include that a driver must ID himself before trip data is stored in system (“The driving assist device includes a receiving unit that receives the vehicle condition information of the vehicle and a user identifier of the user who drives the vehicle, a storage unit that stores the vehicle condition information received by the receiving unit in association with the user identifier, … a driving assist content providing unit that provides driving assist content corresponding to a driving proficiency level to each user based on the driving proficiency level determined by the driving proficiency level determining unit and the driving assist information stored in the storage unit.”, [011]), storing ID data occurs post ID of driver.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Koenig to incorporate the teachings of Kitagishi because Koenig would be more efficient and secure should it require an identifier from rider before a trip ensues as done in Kitagishi (“The driving assist device includes a receiving unit that receives the vehicle condition information and a user identifier of the user, a storage unit that stores the vehicle condition information in association with the user identifier,”, [Abstract, published March 27, 2014]).
Regarding claim 11:
Koenig discloses all limitations of claim 1:
Koenig does not expressly disclose, but Kitagishi teaches:
The method as defined in claim 1,
wherein the identification of the rider is received at the server or at the powersport vehicle before the powersport vehicle has completed travelling the route. Examiner broadly interprets this claim to include that any rider ID’s himself before the trip ends, … (“the driving assist method includes: receiving the vehicle condition information of the vehicle and the user identifier of a user who drives the vehicle; storing the vehicle condition information and the user identifier which are received in the receiving of the vehicle condition information in a storage unit in association with each other;”, [012]) and (“Thereafter, steps S204 to S211 are repeatedly performed. Then, when driving of the vehicle 200 ends, for example, just before getting off the vehicle, the user transmits the OBD-based data acquisition end request to the ECU 210 (including the OBD system) through the OBD reader 220 using the communication function (for example, WiFi) of the mobile terminal 300 (step S212). Upon receiving the OBD-based data acquisition end request, the ECU 210 ends transmission of the OBD-based data.”, [0176])., driver ID data is received before trip ends.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Koenig to incorporate the teachings of Kitagishi because Koenig would be more efficient and secure should it require an identifier from rider before a trip ensues as done in Kitagishi (“The driving assist device includes a receiving unit that receives the vehicle condition information and a user identifier of the user, a storage unit that stores the vehicle condition information in association with the user identifier,”, [Abstract, published March 27, 2014]).
Regarding claim 12:
Koenig discloses all limitations of claim 1:
Koenig does not expressly disclose, but Kitagishi teaches:
The method as defined in claim 1, comprising
denying the rider access to the first dataset. (“Next, the user transmits an OBD-based data acquisition start request to the ECU 210 (including the OBD system) through the OBD reader 220 using the communication function (for example, WiFi) of the mobile terminal 300 (step S102). As described above, the mobile terminal 300 can make the OBD-based data acquisition start request through a dedicated application, a general-purpose tool, or the like used to access the driving assist server 100.”, [097]), user is denied access to the first (to any) data before user is recognized by system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Koenig to incorporate the teachings of Kitagishi because Koenig would be more efficient and secure should it require an identifier from rider before a trip ensues as done in Kitagishi (“The driving assist device includes a receiving unit that receives the vehicle condition information and a user identifier of the user, a storage unit that stores the vehicle condition information in association with the user identifier,”, [Abstract, published March 27, 2014]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the additional rejection herein pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or rewritten in independent claim form. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independently, while the claims' limitations most recently set forth herein may individually be disclosed by the prior art, claim 10 as a whole is not obvious because the examiner would have to improperly use their separate limitations as a road map to combine them.
CONCLUSION
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form 892.
Lambrenos (US20150325058A1) - A method is provided for controlling access to an automated vehicle rental station including at least one rental vehicle parking location, the station being situated within a structure access to which is controlled by a passage control device disposed at at least one entrance/exit of the structure, the passage control device being movable between an open position permitting passage and a closed position prohibiting passage, the method including a permission phase, including the following steps: —acquisition of an identifier of the user by an acquisition device disposed at an entrance/exit of the structure, —transmission of the identifier to a remote server through a communication network, —verification of at least one condition relating to the user to grant or deny passage, and —command of the passage control device, disposed at the entrance/exit of the structure, as a verification of the at least one condition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, M - F.
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 call examiner Cobb as above, or 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, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights