DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application JP2025-006490 filed in Japan on 1/16/2025.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 1/23/2026 has been considered.
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:
“a first acquisition unit which acquires first information…” of claim 1
“a second acquisition unit which acquires second information” of claim 1
“a decision unit which decides…” of claim 1
“a presentation control unit which…restricts a presentation unit which presents information on the usage plan from presenting identification information …and…allows the presentation unit to present the identification information” of claim 1
“the presentation control unit, in the first time frame, allows the presentation unit to present” of claim 8
“the presentation control unit, in the first time frame, allows the presentation unit to present…” of claim 10
“the second acquisition unit acquires the second information” of claim 11
“a presentation unit which presents information… the presentation unit to present the identification information” of claim 19
“a first acquisition unit which acquires first information,” “a second acquisition unit which acquires second information,” “a decision unit which decides,” and “a presentation control unit which…restricts a presentation unit which presents information on the usage plan from presenting identification information…and…allows the presentation unit to present the identification information” of claim 20
The following portions of the specification (as filed 12/16/2025) appear to provide the corresponding structure for the limitations above, for performing the claimed functions:
First, ¶ 0038 specifies that “The computation unit 200 includes a first acquisition unit 210, a decision unit 220, and a presentation control unit 230” and ¶ 0036 “The computation unit 200 is embodied as an arithmetic processing unit including a processor.” Therefore, the first and second acquisition units, decision unit, and presentation control unit are functional elements included in a processor.
a first acquisition unit - ¶ 0038, ¶ 0048-0049
a second acquisition unit - ¶ 0038, ¶ 0048, ¶ 0050-0051
a decision unit - ¶ 0038, ¶ 0040, ¶ 0048, ¶ 0052
a presentation control unit - ¶ 0038, ¶ 0040, ¶ 0043, ¶ 0076, ¶ 0101, ¶ 0104
a presentation unit - ¶ 0043, ¶ 0117
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “first information which includes a first time period for which a reservation target is scheduled to be used” and “second information which includes a second time period for which a reservation target is scheduled to be used.” Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the second instance of “a reservation target” is intended to refer to the same reservation target, or may be referring to a different reservation target than the first instance of “a reservation target.”
Claims 19 and 20 recite substantially the same issues with respect to “a reservation target” being recited twice, and are rejected under § 112(b) for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
For the purposes of further examination, the examiner interprets the first and second instances of a reservation target in claims 1, 19 and 20 to refer to either the same reservation target or a different reservation target. Furthermore, subsequent instances of “the reservation target” in the dependent claims are interpreted as referring to either instance of “a reservation target” recited in claim 1.
Claims 7-10 and 16-18 also similarly refer to “a reservation target” and thus are also rendered indefinite because it is unclear whether these specific instances of “a reservation target” are intended to refer to any (or either) of the preceding instances of “a reservation target” or may instead refer to different reservation targets. The same interpretation above also applied to “a reservation target” in claims 7-10 and 16-18.
See Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211, (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2008), holding “if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions” the claim may be rejected as indefinite during prosecution.
Claims 2-6 and 11-15 are also further rejected under § 112(b) as they depend from rejected independent claim 1.
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 recite “An information processing apparatus…” (i.e. a machine); claim 19 recites “An information processing method…” (i.e. a process); and claim 20 recites “A computer-readable storage medium having recorded thereon a program for information processing for a usage plan of a reservation target, the program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to function…” (i.e. a machine or article of manufacture). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 19 and 20 (using method claim 19 as representative) recite limitations for performing information processing for a usage plan of a reservation target, including:
acquiring first information which includes a first time period for which a reservation target is scheduled to be used for a first use application;
acquiring second information which includes a second time period for which a reservation target is scheduled to be used for a second use application;
deciding the usage plan based on the first information and the second information; and
in a first time frame, restricting…presenting identification information that is a portion of the usage plan, and, in a second time frame after the first time frame, allowing…to present the identification information
The limitations of independent claims 1, 19 and 20 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. determining a usage plan for a vehicle according to reservations to use the vehicle, and managing presentation of identification information corresponding to the usage plan) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis. Note that “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), claim limitations which recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of judicial exceptions. Therefore, since the processes described by the limitations above amount to a commercial interaction (i.e. determining a usage plan for a vehicle according to reservations to use the vehicle, and managing presentation of identification information corresponding to the usage plan – which describes sales activities/behaviors and business relations/interactions), the claims fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[T]he "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” and “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” The limitations recited by the representative independent claims 1, 19 and 20 above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and but for the use of generic computer components, cover concepts (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) that can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper. For example, the two “acquiring” steps of claim 19 and the similar steps of claims 1/20 amount to observations, while the “deciding,” “restricting,” and “allowing” steps of claim 19 and the similar steps of claims 1/20 would be considered evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed either in the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of pen and paper (e.g. waiting to write down and provide vehicle identification to a customer, until a final plan or finalized reservation is known). Therefore, as the processes above described by the representative independent claims 1, 19 and 20 can be characterized as mental processes (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), but for the recitation of generic computer components in the claims, the claims fall under the “mental processes” category of judicial exceptions (i.e. abstract ideas).
As claims 1, 19 and 20 are identified by the examiner as reciting concepts that fall under more than one abstract idea grouping (i.e. “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes”), the examiner considers the limitations together as a single abstract idea for the purposes of the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two:
Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the following additional elements:
An information processing apparatus, comprising a first acquisition unit, a second acquisition unit, a decision unit, and a presentation control unit which restricts a presentation unit which presents information, and allows the presentation unit to present identification information of claim 1
An information processing method of claim 19
a presentation unit which presents information and identification information of claim 19
“A computer-readable storage medium having recorded thereon a program for information processing for a usage plan of a reservation target, the program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to function as…” a first acquisition unit, a second acquisition unit, a decision unit, and a presentation control unit which restricts a presentation unit which presents information, and allows the presentation unit to present identification information of claim 20
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 1, 19 and 20 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. determining a usage plan for a vehicle according to reservations to use the vehicle, and managing presentation of identification information corresponding to the usage plan) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. An information processing apparatus, comprising a first acquisition unit, a second acquisition unit, a decision unit, and a presentation control unit which restricts a presentation unit which presents information, and allows the presentation unit to present identification information of claim 1; An information processing method of claim 19; and “A computer-readable storage medium having recorded thereon a program for information processing for a usage plan of a reservation target, the program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to function as…” a first acquisition unit, a second acquisition unit, a decision unit, and a presentation control unit which restricts a presentation unit which presents information, and allows the presentation unit to present identification information of claim 20). Note that as per the § 112(f) claim interpretations above, the first and second acquisition units, decision unit, and presentation control unit are functional elements implemented by a computer processor (also generally see spec. ¶ 0036-0038, ¶ 0045-0051), and thus are generic computer components used to apply the abstract idea. Similarly, the “presentation unit” reads on a generic display used to present information, and does not add anything beyond generic computer functions capable of being carried out by any typical off the shelf computing device. See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
Furthermore, the use of the first and second acquisition unit to acquire data electronically describes the use of generic computer elements in their ordinary capacity to receive data. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, but instead also indicates that the claims recite mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components. Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 19 and 20 do not include additional elements, whether considered alone or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. determining a usage plan for a vehicle according to reservations to use the vehicle, and managing presentation of identification information corresponding to the usage plan) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. An information processing apparatus, comprising a first acquisition unit, a second acquisition unit, a decision unit, and a presentation control unit which restricts a presentation unit which presents information, and allows the presentation unit to present identification information of claim 1; An information processing method of claim 19; and “A computer-readable storage medium having recorded thereon a program for information processing for a usage plan of a reservation target, the program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to function as…” a first acquisition unit, a second acquisition unit, a decision unit, and a presentation control unit which restricts a presentation unit which presents information, and allows the presentation unit to present identification information of claim 20). Note that as per the § 112(f) claim interpretations above, the first and second acquisition units, decision unit, and presentation control unit are functional elements implemented by a computer processor (also generally see spec. ¶ 0036-0038, ¶ 0045-0051), and thus are generic computer components used to apply the abstract idea. Similarly, the “presentation unit” reads on a generic display used to present information, and does not add anything beyond generic computer functions capable of being carried out by any typical off the shelf computing device. See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
Furthermore, the use of the first and second acquisition unit to acquire data electronically describes the use of generic computer elements in their ordinary capacity to receive data. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not add significantly more, but instead also indicates that the claims recite mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components.
Considering the additional elements as an ordered combination does not add anything that amounts to significantly more, as the additional elements considered together merely use generic computer implementation to apply the abstract idea above. Therefore, claims 1, 19 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent Claims 2-18:
Dependent claims 2-18 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “the reservation target is a vehicle which includes an energy accumulation apparatus, and the second use application is a use application for which the vehicle is to be used for energy exchange between the vehicle and an energy network which is capable of energy exchange” – these limitations merely further describe the abstract idea above, while at best generally linking the performance of the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment (electric vehicles used for energy exchange with an energy network).
Claims 3-7, 9, and 11-18 recite the following limitations which merely further describe the abstract idea above: “the first use application is a use application which involves traveling of the vehicle” (claim 3); “the first information further includes designation information which designates a specific reservation target…” (claims 4, 12, and 13); “the first information further includes information on a degree of importance of the designation information” (claim 5); “the first information further includes information on a degree of importance of the first time period” (claims 6, 14, 15); “the identification information includes information for identifying a reservation target…” (claims 7, 16, 17); “the identification information includes information for identifying a time at or a time frame for which a reservation target is to be used” (claims 9, 18); and “the first time frame includes a time frame prior to a timing at which the second acquisition unit acquires the second information, and the second time frame includes a time frame after the second acquisition unit acquires the second information” (claim 11).
Claims 8 and 10 further describe the abstract idea above (“in the first time frame, allows…to present a time at or a time frame for which a reservation target is to be used for the first use application in the usage plan” of claim 8; and “…in the first time frame, allows…to present information for identifying a reservation target which is to be used for the first use application in the usage plan”) being implemented using generic computer components (“the presentation control unit” and “the presentation unit”).
Considering the additional elements as an ordered combination does not add anything that would amount to significantly more, and either apply the abstract idea using generic computer implementation, or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment/field of use.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under § 101.
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 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 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 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140100708 A1 to Ukita et al. (Ukita) in view of US 20180032920 A1 to Ito.
Claim 1: Ukita teaches:
An information processing apparatus (Ukita: Figs. 1-2 and ¶ 0036, ¶ 0043-0050 showing vehicle reservation management device 100) which performs information processing for a usage plan of a reservation target (Ukita: ¶ 0036, ¶ 0043-0050, ¶ 0008-0013 managing reservation and usage of electric vehicles), comprising:
a first acquisition unit (Ukita: ¶ 0047 showing information acquisition unit, see ¶ 0050-0051 showing computer hardware including a CPU used to perform functions of the vehicle reservation management device 100) which acquires first information which includes a first time period for which a reservation target is scheduled to be used for a first use application (Ukita: ¶ 0011, ¶ 0047 showing acquiring vehicle reservation information, which as per ¶ 0009, ¶ 0035 pertains to usage for car rentals or car sharing – see ¶ 0035 “Hereinafter, information that includes a target vehicle and usage period under reservation will be referred to as reservation information”);
a second acquisition unit (Ukita: ¶ 0047 showing information acquisition unit, see ¶ 0050-0051 showing computer hardware including a CPU used to perform functions of the vehicle reservation management device 100) which acquires second information which includes a second time period for which a reservation target is scheduled to be used for a second use application (Ukita: ¶ 0047 “acquiring power supply request information that includes information on a supply period during which the electric power system is requesting the supply of electric power,” i.e. a time period for which the vehicle is used to discharge/supply energy to the grid; also see ¶ 0011, ¶ 0056-0058, ¶ 0078);
a decision unit which decides the usage plan based on the first information and the second information (Ukita: ¶ 0056-0057 showing vehicle reservation management device determining that, based on the reservation information and the power supply period, the vehicle can supply power during the requested power supply period and ¶ 0062-0063 showing determining that the reserved time and the supply period do not overlap, and subsequently calculating the maximum power that the EV is able to supply to the electric power system; Figs. 5-6 and ¶ 0064-0071 further describes determining the process of determining the quantity of power to be supplied by the vehicle during the supply period while maintaining sufficient power after charging for the reserved time period, i.e. usage plan; see Figs. 6-7 specifically showing determined supply, charging, and reservation periods); and
With respect to the limitations:
a presentation control unit which, in a first time frame, restricts a presentation unit which presents information on the usage plan from presenting identification information that is a portion of the usage plan,
and, in a second time frame after the first time frame, allows the presentation unit to present the identification information
Ukita teaches that “in the case of determining in step S209 that a reserved time does not overlap with the supply period, the supply power calculation unit 123 acquires that electric vehicle EV as a vehicle eligible for power supply, and stops accepting reservations during the supply period (S211),” i.e. does not present the vehicle as available for new reservation (Ukita: ¶ 0063; also see ¶ 0045 showing to make reservations, user device is presented with a reservation reception screen by the vehicle reservation manager) – however, this pertains to making a new reservation and thus Ukita does not explicitly teach restricting presenting identification information associated with the usage plan during a first time frame and presenting the identification information during a second time frame.
However, Ito teaches, after making a provisional/unfixed reservation (Ito: Fig. 7, ¶ 0168 and Figs. 9-10, ¶ 0191-0201; also see ¶ 0011 showing initially that “The reservation result transmitted back to the user may simply be information about the validity of the reservation (i.e., whether the vehicle reservation has been accepted or declined)”), not displaying the finalized/fixed reservation information in a period leading up to a reservation for usage of a vehicle while an optimization process is being performed if there is time to perform the optimization process (first time period) until after the optimization process is completed prior to the reservation start time (second time frame) (Ito: Fig. 7, ¶ 0170-0176 and Figs. 9-10, ¶ 0202-0214), and then transmitting/presenting the final/fixed reservation information including an updated vehicle allocation (Ito: ¶ 0176 “When the optimization process shown by arrow AR30 is complete, the electric vehicle 30 originally allocated to the first vehicle reservation made by User 1 is changed (for example, allocated to the second vehicle reservation made by User 2), and information regarding such change is transmitted to User 1”; also ¶ 0213 “In S05, the system 100 determines whether the optimization process is complete. When the optimization process is complete, the process proceeds to S06…” and ¶ 0214 “In S06, the reservation result data updated by the optimization process is transmitted to a user (i.e., transmitted to a user's personal computer 40 for display to the user) from the result transmitter 120”), wherein this finalized/updated reservation result data would include vehicle identification information displayed on a screen of the personal computer of the user (Ito: ¶ 0052-0053 showing vehicle identification information displayed to the user on the user device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the performance of an optimization process prior to displaying a final/updated vehicle reservation allocation of Ito in the vehicle reservation system of Ukita with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that it “reduces the costs of a vehicle-sharing service by optimizing the vehicle allocation to the vehicle reservations and also provides a quick response to the user by quickly presenting the reservation result to the user in response to the user's reservation of a vehicle” (Ito: ¶ 0014).
Note: Since the updated vehicle reservation of Ito is not provided to the user until after the optimization process is complete, it reads on restricting presentation of the identification information during a first time frame and until a second time frame as claimed, under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 2: Ukita/Ito teach claim 1. Ukita, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the reservation target is a vehicle which includes an energy accumulation apparatus (Ukita: ¶ 0034-0037, ¶ 0045-0048 showing the reservation is for an electric vehicle having an electric battery), and
the second use application is a use application for which the vehicle is to be used for energy exchange between the vehicle and an energy network which is capable of energy exchange (Ukita: ¶ 0037, ¶ 0039, ¶ 0047-0050 showing the supply period corresponds to a time in which energy is supplied from the vehicle to the energy grid/smart grid by V2G, i.e. vehicle-to-grid)
Claim 3: Ukita/Ito teach claim 2. Ukita, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the first use application is a use application which involves traveling of the vehicle (Ukita: ¶ 0009, ¶ 0035 showing the vehicle is used for reservation in a car rental/carsharing service, and see ¶ 0070 showing travel time and travel distance for the reservation)
Claim 4: Ukita/Ito teach claim 1. Ukita, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the first information further includes designation information which designates a specific reservation target which is to be used for the first use application, among a plurality of reservation targets (Ukita: ¶ 0034-0036, ¶ 0040, ¶ 0043-0045 showing vehicle reservation information includes a target vehicle, which as per Fig. 1, ¶ 0034-0036 is one of a plurality of EVs)
Claim 7: Ukita/Ito teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Ukita does not explicitly teach, however, Ito teaches:
wherein the identification information includes information for identifying a reservation target which is to be used for the first use application in the usage plan (Ito: ¶ 0052 showing “the reservation result data includes, if the user's reservation request is accepted, information that identifies the electric vehicle 30 allocated to the user's vehicle reservation…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the identification information including information identifying a target vehicle of Ito in the vehicle reservation system of Ukita/Ito with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 8: Ukita/Ito teach claim 7. With respect to the following limitations, Ukita does not explicitly teach, however, Ito teaches:
wherein the presentation control unit, in the first time frame, allows the presentation unit to present a time at or a time frame for which a reservation target is to be used for the first use application in the usage plan (Ito: ¶ 0009 further showing “transmit a reservation result including a rental start time of the vehicle reservation to the external computing device”, i.e. the transmitted reservation result information, which as per ¶ 0171 could be sent during the first time period prior to completion of the optimization process, may include a time for which the vehicle reservation starts; see ¶ 0053 showing the reservation result data is displayed to the user device)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included presenting the reservation result information prior to the optimization process of Ito in the vehicle reservation system of Ukita/Ito with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 9: Ukita/Ito teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Ukita does not explicitly teach, however, Ito teaches:
wherein the identification information includes information for identifying a time at or a time frame for which a reservation target is to be used for the first use application in the usage plan (Ito: ¶ 0009 showing “transmit a reservation result including a rental start time of the vehicle reservation to the external computing device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the reservation result data including a rental start time of Ito in the vehicle reservation system of Ukita/Ito with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 10: Ukita/Ito teach claim 9. With respect to the following limitations, Ukita does not explicitly teach, however, Ito teaches:
wherein the presentation control unit, in the first time frame, allows the presentation unit to present information for identifying a reservation target which is to be used for the first use application in the usage plan (Ito: ¶ 0171, ¶ 0192 showing reservation result transmitted in the time period prior to the optimization process for generating the updated reservation result information; wherein as per ¶ 0052-0053 the reservation result data may include information identifying the allocated vehicle; in addition, see Fig. 6, ¶ 0162-0165 and ¶ 0227-0229 showing that in a situation where the users reservation begins too soon to allow time for the optimization process, it is not performed at all and the originally transmitted reservation result information becomes the fixed reservation information)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included information identifying the vehicle in the initial reservation result information of Ito in the vehicle reservation system of Ukita/Ito with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 11: Ukita/Ito teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations:
wherein the first time frame includes a time frame prior to a timing at which the second acquisition unit acquires the second information, and the second time frame includes a time frame after the second acquisition unit acquires the second information
While Ukita teaches acquiring first and second information corresponding to scheduled/requested use of a target vehicle as per claim 1 above (see Ukita: ¶ 0011, ¶ 0047 acquiring first and second information for use of a vehicle), Ukita does not explicitly teach a timing at which the first time frame occurs that is prior to a time at which second information is acquired, and where the second time frame occurs after acquiring the second information.
However, Ito teaches a first time frame (a time frame prior to completion of optimization) in which second reservation information is received, which interrupts the optimization process (Ito: Fig. 7, ¶ 0170-0175 see a time period from T120 to T135, which includes a time frame prior to a time where second reservation information is received at T121), and where the second time frame after optimization includes a time frame after receiving the second reservation information (Ito: Fig. 7, ¶ 0170-0176 showing time frame from T135 onwards, which necessarily includes a time frame after receiving the reservation at time T121). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the time frames including time frames prior to and after receiving second reservation information of Ito in the vehicle reservation system of Ukita/Ito with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12: Ukita/Ito teach claim 2. Ukita, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the first information further includes designation information which designates a specific reservation target which is to be used for the first use application, among a plurality of reservation targets (Ukita: ¶ 0034-0036, ¶ 0040, ¶ 0043-0045 showing vehicle reservation information includes a target vehicle, which as per Fig. 1, ¶ 0034-0036 is one of a plurality of EVs)
Claim 13: Ukita/Ito teach claim 3. Ukita, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the first information further includes designation information which designates a specific reservation target which is to be used for the first use application, among a plurality of reservation targets (Ukita: ¶ 0034-0036, ¶ 0040, ¶ 0043-0045 showing vehicle reservation information includes a target vehicle, which as per Fig. 1, ¶ 0034-0036 is one of a plurality of EVs)
Claim 16: Ukita/Ito teach claim 2. With respect to the following limitations, Ukita does not explicitly teach, however, Ito teaches:
wherein the identification information includes information for identifying a reservation target which is to be used for the first use application in the usage plan (Ito: ¶ 0052 showing “the reservation result data includes, if the user's reservation request is accepted, information that identifies the electric vehicle 30 allocated to the user's vehicle reservation…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the identification information including information identifying a target vehicle of Ito in the vehicle reservation system of Ukita/Ito with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 17: Ukita/Ito teach claim 3. With respect to the following limitations, Ukita does not explicitly teach, however, Ito teaches:
wherein the identification information includes information for identifying a reservation target which is to be used for the first use application in the usage plan (Ito: ¶ 0052 showing “the reservation result data includes, if the user's reservation request is accepted, information that identifies the electric vehicle 30 allocated to the user's vehicle reservation…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the identification information including information identifying a target vehicle of Ito in the vehicle reservation system of Ukita/Ito with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 18: Ukita/Ito teach claim 2. With respect to the following limitations, Ukita does not explicitly teach, however, Ito teaches:
wherein the identification information includes information for identifying a time at or a time frame for which a reservation target is to be used for the first use application in the usage plan (Ito: ¶ 0009 showing “transmit a reservation result including a rental start time of the vehicle reservation to the external computing device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the reservation result data including a rental start time of Ito in the vehicle reservation system of Ukita/Ito with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 19: See the rejection of claim 1 above. Ukita further teaches: An information processing method (Ukita: ¶ 0010, ¶ 0091 information processing method).
Claim 20: See the rejection of claim 1 above. Ukita further teaches: A computer-readable storage medium having recorded thereon a program for information processing for a usage plan of a reservation target, the program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to function as… (Ukita: ¶ 0012 “a computer-readable recording medium having a program recorded thereon, the program causing a computer to function as an information processing device…”).
Claims 5-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140100708 A1 to Ukita et al. (Ukita) in view of US 20180032920 A1 to Ito, and further in view of US 20220076171 A1 to Yamashita et al. (Yamashita).
Claim 5: Ukita/Ito teach claim 4. With respect to the following limitations, Ukita/Ito do not explicitly teach a priority or importance of the designation information, however, Yamashita teaches:
wherein the first information further includes information on a degree of importance of the designation information (Yamashita: ¶ 0040, ¶ 0076-0082 showing reservation information includes information used for determining a level of importance associated with the reservation request for the vehicle)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the receipt of information for determining a level of importance of a reservation of Yamashita in the vehicle reservation system of Ukita/Ito with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “it is desired to further improve convenience for a user in a car sharing service. For example, it is desired to prioritize and register a reservation for a vehicle having a higher importance level” (Yamashita: ¶ 0005) and to “improve convenience for a user in a car sharing service” (Yamashita: ¶ 0006).
Claim 6: Ukita/Ito teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Ukita/Ito do not explicitly teach an importance associated with the time period associated with the reservation information, however, Yamashita teaches:
wherein the first information further includes information on a degree of importance of the first time period (Yamashita: ¶ 0081 “the information to be used for the determination of the importance level of the reservation request is not limited to the above-described examples, and may include positional information for the user, the type, and the use start date and time, the use end date and time, the use period, or the like of a vehicle 10”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the receipt of information including a reservation time period for determining a level of importance of a reservation of Yamashita in the vehicle reservation system of Ukita/Ito with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “it is desired to further improve convenience for a user in a car sharing service. For example, it is desired to prioritize and register a reservation for a vehicle having a higher importance level” (Yamashita: ¶ 0005) and to “improve convenience for a user in a car sharing service” (Yamashita: ¶ 0006).
Claim 14: Ukita/Ito teach claim 2. With respect to the following limitations, Ukita/Ito do not explicitly teach an importance associated with the time period associated with the reservation information, however, Yamashita teaches:
wherein the first information further includes information on a degree of importance of the first time period (Yamashita: ¶ 0081 “the information to be used for the determination of the importance level of the reservation request is not limited to the above-described examples, and may include positional information for the user, the type, and the use start date and time, the use end date and time, the use period, or the like of a vehicle 10”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the receipt of information including a reservation time period for determining a level of importance of a reservation of Yamashita in the vehicle reservation system of Ukita/Ito with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “it is desired to further improve convenience for a user in a car sharing service. For example, it is desired to prioritize and register a reservation for a vehicle having a higher importance level” (Yamashita: ¶ 0005) and to “improve convenience for a user in a car sharing service” (Yamashita: ¶ 0006).
Claim 15: Ukita/Ito teach claim 3. With respect to the following limitations, Ukita/Ito do not explicitly teach an importance associated with the time period associated with the reservation information, however, Yamashita teaches:
wherein the first information further includes information on a degree of importance of the first time period (Yamashita: ¶ 0081 “the information to be used for the determination of the importance level of the reservation request is not limited to the above-described examples, and may include positional information for the user, the type, and the use start date and time, the use end date and time, the use period, or the like of a vehicle 10”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the receipt of information including a reservation time period for determining a level of importance of a reservation of Yamashita in the vehicle reservation system of Ukita/Ito with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “it is desired to further improve convenience for a user in a car sharing service. For example, it is desired to prioritize and register a reservation for a vehicle having a higher importance level” (Yamashita: ¶ 0005) and to “improve convenience for a user in a car sharing service” (Yamashita: ¶ 0006).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571)272-4602. 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights