Patent Application 18217031 - AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING A - Rejection

Patent Application 18217031 - AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING A

Title: AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING A FLEET OF AGRICULTURAL WORK VEHICLES

Application Information

• Invention Title: AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING A FLEET OF AGRICULTURAL WORK VEHICLES
• Application Number: 18217031
• Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2023-06-30T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2023-06-30T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 701
• National Sub-Class: 050000
• Examiner Employee Number: 98712
• Art Unit: 3669
• Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 3

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0278608🔗
• US 0193356🔗
• US 0099898🔗
• US 0160994🔗
• US 0090107🔗

Office Action Text

    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 . Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).

Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.

Claim Interpretation
	Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA  35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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:
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;
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
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed 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 computing system” in claims 1-20.
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.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “a computing system” uses a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Computing system: [0027] “any suitable processor-based device”.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).

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.


Claims 1 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mckeeman (US 2020/0090107 A1) in view of Schmidt (US 2011/0160994 A1) and Lambrinos (WO 2013/045837 A1, a translation is attached and being relied upon).

Regarding claim 1, Mckeeman discloses a system for managing a fleet of agricultural vehicles (abstract – system for selecting equipment and operators necessary to provide agricultural services), the system comprising: a first work vehicle (abstract, [0004, 0068, 0174] – equipment owners of agricultural machinery… tractor); a second work vehicle (abstract, [0004, 0068, 0174] – equipment owners of agricultural machinery… tractor); a computing system communicatively coupled with the first and second work vehicles ([0068, 0174]), the computing system being configured to: receive an input assigning the first work vehicle to a first work task ([0137-0138] – particular service need… pieces of equipment); receive an input assigning a first operator to the first work task ([0137-0138] – particular service need… operator to operate the equipment); the first operator is assigned to the first work vehicle in response to receiving the input assigning the first work vehicle to the first work task and the input assigning the first operator to the first work task ([0092-0094] – the general equipment owner information record may include preferences of the equipment owner such as a minimum acceptable rating of a hirer, operator or customer, a maximum supply radius or delivery distance, a list of preferred customers, producers or operators, a customer or operator whitelist or blacklist, or may include a feedback score, reliability rating or reputational score of the equipment owner. In examples, the feedback score, reliability rating or reputational score may be based on feedback from other users of the system that have previously used the services of the equipment owner… an equipment record may comprise a type of crop or crops that the piece of equipment can be used for, the maximum distance the equipment may be transported, the maximum or minimum length of time of a scheduled booking for the piece of equipment, a whitelist or blacklist of operators that are permitted to operate the equipment, a minimum rating of operators that are permitted to operate the equipment, and so forth).  
Mckeeman does not appear to explicitly disclose receive an input assigning the second work vehicle to the first work task; grant the first operator an ability to access the first work vehicle in response to receiving the input assigning the first work vehicle to the first work task and the input assigning the first operator to the first work task; and grant the first operator an ability to access the second work vehicle in response to receiving the input assigning the second work vehicle to the first work task and the input assigning the first operator to the first work task.
Schmidt, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: receive an input assigning the second work vehicle to the first work task ([0017, 0032] – log data to the work being done… the same operator may use different machines, such as switching from a harvester to a transport truck or switching to a different machine of the same type).
Since Mckeeman does disclose that one or more pieces of agricultural equipment are to be used for providing the service (Mckeeman – [0103]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Schmidt into the invention of Mckeeman with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is that depending on the work being done, the same operator may use different machines, for example switching from a harvester to a transport truck or switching to a different machine of the same type (Schmidt – [0032]). 
Lambrinos, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: grant the first operator an ability to access the first work vehicle in response to receiving the input assigning the first work vehicle to the first work task and the input assigning the first operator to the first work task ([0012-0016, 0048] – assigning an operator a task to be carried out on a vehicle… authorization of an operation relating to said task by said operator on said target vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Lambrinos into the invention of Mckeeman with a reasonable expectation of success to grant the first operator approval to operate the first and second work vehicles. The motivation of doing so is that it prevents theft of the vehicles (Lambrinos – [0004]). 
Furthermore, the steps regarding the second work vehicle are identical to the steps regarding the first work vehicle, and therefore is merely a duplication of the same process, which is a generally obvious modification that would yield predictable results. Specifically, the process for granting access to the second work vehicle would logically be the same as for granting access to the first work vehicle in order to provide a secure way to allow an operator to access both vehicles as needed to perform the services.

Regarding claim 11, Mckeeman discloses wherein the first work task comprises at least one of tilling, seeding, planting, fertilizing, spraying, harvesting, baling, maintenance, or transporting ([0004, 0070, 0174] – sowing a crop… fertilization… crop spraying… harvesting a crop… bale hay).  

Regarding claim 12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claim 12 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.

Claims 2-6 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mckeeman in view of Schmidt, Lambrinos, and Schulz (DE 10 2019 207 144 A1, a translation is attached and being relied upon).

Regarding claim 2, Mckeeman does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the computing system is further configured to compare credentials of the first operator to credential requirements of each vehicle assigned to the first work task, wherein the computing system is configured to grant the first operator the ability to access the first work vehicle in response to receiving the input assigning the first work vehicle to the first work task, receiving the input assigning the first operator to the first work task, and the credentials of the first operator matching the credential requirements of the first work vehicle based on the comparison of the credentials of the first operator to the credential requirements of each vehicle assigned to the first work task, and wherein the computing system is configured to grant the first operator the ability to access the second work vehicle in response to receiving the input assigning the second work vehicle to the first work task, receiving the input assigning the first operator to the first work task, and the credentials of the first operator matching the credential requirements of the second work vehicle based on the comparison of the credentials of the first operator to the credential requirements of each vehicle assigned to the first work task.  
Schulz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the computing system is configured to grant the first operator the ability to access the first work vehicle in response to the credentials of the first operator matching the credential requirements of the first work vehicle based on the comparison of the credentials of the first operator to the credential requirements of each vehicle ([0025-0026] – access authorizations restricted to specific work machines or even to specific functions and/or setting options of the work machine… operator is assigned his or her access authorizations depending primarily on the qualifications of the operator… driving license or has attended a seminar… current operator); and wherein the computing system is configured to grant the first operator the ability to access the second work vehicle in response to the credentials of the first operator matching the credential requirements of the second work vehicle based on the comparison of the credentials of the first operator to the credential requirements of each vehicle ([0025-0026] – access authorizations restricted to specific work machines or even to specific functions and/or setting options of the work machine… operator is assigned his or her access authorizations depending primarily on the qualifications of the operator… driving license or has attended a seminar… current operator). 
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Schulz into the invention of Mckeeman with a reasonable expectation of success to only allow a trained operator with the necessary qualifications to access the specific work machines to prevent misuse or theft (Schulz – [0025-0028]). This would ensure that the operator is qualified to operate the machine which improves safety. 
Furthermore, the steps regarding the second work vehicle are identical to the steps regarding the first work vehicle, and therefore is merely a duplication of the same process, which is a generally obvious modification that would yield predictable results. Specifically, the process for granting access to the second work vehicle would logically be the same as for granting access to the first work vehicle in order to provide a secure way to allow an operator to access both vehicles as needed to perform the services.

Regarding claim 3, Mckeeman does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the credential requirements comprise credential requirements for operating first features of the first work vehicle, credential requirements for operating second features of the first work vehicle, credential requirements for operating first features of the second work vehicle, and credential requirements for operating second features of the second work vehicle, wherein the computing system is configured to grant the first operator the ability to operate the first features of the first work vehicle when the credentials of the first operator match the credential requirements for operating the first features of the first work vehicle, wherein the computing system is configured to grant the first operator the ability to operate the second features of the first work vehicle when the credentials of the first operator match the credential requirements for operating the second features of the first work vehicle, wherein the computing system is configured to grant the first operator the ability to operate the first features of the second work vehicle when the credentials of the first operator match the credential requirements for operating the first features of the second work vehicle, and wherein the computing system is configured to grant the first operator the ability to operate the second features of the second work vehicle when the credentials of the first operator match the credential requirements for operating the second features of the second work vehicle.  
Schulz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the credential requirements comprise credential requirements for operating first features of the first work vehicle, credential requirements for operating second features of the first work vehicle ([0025-0026] – access authorizations restricted to specific work machines or even to specific functions and/or setting options of the work machine… operator is assigned his or her access authorizations depending primarily on the qualifications of the operator… driving license or has attended a seminar… current operator), credential requirements for operating first features of the second work vehicle, and credential requirements for operating second features of the second work vehicle ([0025-0026] – access authorizations restricted to specific work machines or even to specific functions and/or setting options of the work machine… operator is assigned his or her access authorizations depending primarily on the qualifications of the operator… driving license or has attended a seminar… current operator), wherein the computing system is configured to grant the first operator the ability to operate the first features of the first work vehicle when the credentials of the first operator match the credential requirements for operating the first features of the first work vehicle, wherein the computing system is configured to grant the first operator the ability to operate the second features of the first work vehicle when the credentials of the first operator match the credential requirements for operating the second features of the first work vehicle ([0025-0026] – access authorizations restricted to specific work machines or even to specific functions and/or setting options of the work machine… operator is assigned his or her access authorizations depending primarily on the qualifications of the operator… driving license or has attended a seminar… current operator), wherein the computing system is configured to grant the first operator the ability to operate the first features of the second work vehicle when the credentials of the first operator match the credential requirements for operating the first features of the second work vehicle ([0025-0026] – access authorizations restricted to specific work machines or even to specific functions and/or setting options of the work machine… operator is assigned his or her access authorizations depending primarily on the qualifications of the operator… driving license or has attended a seminar… current operator), and wherein the computing system is configured to grant the first operator the ability to operate the second features of the second work vehicle when the credentials of the first operator match the credential requirements for operating the second features of the second work vehicle ([0025-0026] – access authorizations restricted to specific work machines or even to specific functions and/or setting options of the work machine… operator is assigned his or her access authorizations depending primarily on the qualifications of the operator… driving license or has attended a seminar… current operator).
The motivation to combine Mckeeman and Schulz is the same as in the rejection of claim 2.

Regarding claim 4, Mckeeman does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the computing system is further configured to: receive an input assigning a second operator to the first work task; compare credentials of the second operator to the credential requirements of each vehicle assigned to the first work task; grant the second operator an ability to access the first work vehicle in response to receiving the input assigning the first work vehicle to the first work task, receiving the input assigning the second operator to the first work task, and the credentials of the second operator matching the credential requirements of the first work vehicle based on the comparison of the credentials of the second operator to the credential requirements of each vehicle assigned to the first work task; and grant the second operator an ability to access the second work vehicle in response to receiving the input assigning the second work vehicle to the first work task, receiving the input assigning the second operator to the first work task, and the credentials of the second operator matching the credential requirements of the second work vehicle based on the comparison of the credentials of the second operator to the credential requirements of each vehicle assigned to the first work task, wherein the computing system is configured to grant the first operator the ability to access the first work vehicle in response to receiving the input assigning the first work vehicle to the first work task, receiving the input assigning the first operator to the first work task, the credentials of the first operator not matching the credential requirements of the first work vehicle, the second operator being granted the ability to access the first work vehicle, and the second operator being present with the first operator in the first work vehicle, and wherein the computing system is configured to grant the first operator the ability to access the second work vehicle in response to receiving the input assigning the second work vehicle to the first work task, receiving the input assigning the first operator to the first work task, and the credentials of the first operator not matching the credential requirements of the second work vehicle, the second operator being granted the ability to access the second work vehicle, and the second operator being present with the first operator in the second work vehicle.  
Schulz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the computing system is further configured to: receive an input assigning a second operator to the first work task ([0025-0026] – current operator is assigned to one of the trained operators); compare credentials of the second operator to the credential requirements of each vehicle assigned to the first work task ([0025-0026] – access authorizations restricted to specific work machines or even to specific functions and/or setting options of the work machine… operator is assigned his or her access authorizations depending primarily on the qualifications of the operator… driving license or has attended a seminar… trained operator); grant the second operator an ability to access the first work vehicle in response to receiving the input assigning the first work vehicle to the first work task, receiving the input assigning the second operator to the first work task, and the credentials of the second operator matching the credential requirements of the first work vehicle based on the comparison of the credentials of the second operator to the credential requirements of each vehicle assigned to the first work task ([0025-0026] – access authorizations restricted to specific work machines or even to specific functions and/or setting options of the work machine… operator is assigned his or her access authorizations depending primarily on the qualifications of the operator… driving license or has attended a seminar… trained operator); and grant the second operator an ability to access the second work vehicle in response to receiving the input assigning the second work vehicle to the first work task, receiving the input assigning the second operator to the first work task, and the credentials of the second operator matching the credential requirements of the second work vehicle based on the comparison of the credentials of the second operator to the credential requirements of each vehicle assigned to the first work task ([0025-0026] – access authorizations restricted to specific work machines or even to specific functions and/or setting options of the work machine… operator is assigned his or her access authorizations depending primarily on the qualifications of the operator… driving license or has attended a seminar… trained operator), wherein the computing system is configured to grant the first operator the ability to access the first work vehicle in response to receiving the input assigning the first work vehicle to the first work task, receiving the input assigning the first operator to the first work task, the credentials of the first operator not matching the credential requirements of the first work vehicle, the second operator being granted the ability to access the first work vehicle, and the second operator being present with the first operator in the first work vehicle ([0025-0026] - access authorizations restricted to specific work machines or even to specific functions and/or setting options of the work machine… operator is assigned his or her access authorizations depending primarily on the qualifications of the operator… the current operator is assigned to one of the trained operators, the current operator will also be granted the corresponding access authorization of the assigned trained operator… certain functions and/or certain setting options, including certain operating elements, are blocked for the current operator if the assigned trained operator does not have the appropriate access authorization... each operator is granted or denied access to operate the work machine and/or at least one tool, depending on his or her qualifications and, if applicable, his or her experience), and wherein the computing system is configured to grant the first operator the ability to access the second work vehicle in response to receiving the input assigning the second work vehicle to the first work task, receiving the input assigning the first operator to the first work task, and the credentials of the first operator not matching the credential requirements of the second work vehicle, the second operator being granted the ability to access the second work vehicle, and the second operator being present with the first operator in the second work vehicle ([0025-0026] - access authorizations restricted to specific work machines or even to specific functions and/or setting options of the work machine… operator is assigned his or her access authorizations depending primarily on the qualifications of the operator… the current operator is assigned to one of the trained operators, the current operator will also be granted the corresponding access authorization of the assigned trained operator… certain functions and/or certain setting options, including certain operating elements, are blocked for the current operator if the assigned trained operator does not have the appropriate access authorization... each operator is granted or denied access to operate the work machine and/or at least one tool, depending on his or her qualifications and, if applicable, his or her experience).  
The motivation to combine Mckeeman and Schulz is the same as in the rejection of claim 2.

Regarding claim 5, Mckeeman does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the computing system is further configured to: receive an input removing the first operator from the first work task; and revoke from the first operator the ability to access the first work vehicle and the ability to access the second work vehicle in response to receiving the input removing the first operator from the first work task.  
Schulz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the computing system is further configured to: receive an input removing the first operator from the first work task ([0028] – the working machine can be stopped or only individual functions or work processes are blocked).
The motivation to combine Mckeeman and Schulz is the same as in the rejection of claim 2.

Regarding claim 6, Mckeeman does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the computing system is further configured to log operation of the first and second work vehicles by the first operator.  
Schulz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the computing system is further configured to log operation of the first and second work vehicles by the first operator ([0027-0028] – operator actions… record a change in the constitution of the operator).
The motivation to combine Mckeeman and Schulz is the same as in the rejection of claim 2.

Regarding claims 13-17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 2-6, respectively, and it has been determined that claims 13-17 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 2-6; therefore, claims 13-17 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 2-6.

Claims 7-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mckeeman in view of Schmidt, Lambrinos, and Johnson (US 2014/0278608 A1).
	
Regarding claim 7, Mckeeman does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising a first user computing device associated with the first operator, wherein the computing system is configured to grant the first operator the ability to access the first work vehicle by granting the first user computing device associated with the first operator the ability to access the first work vehicle, and wherein the computing system is configured to grant the first operator the ability to access the second work vehicle by granting the first user computing device associated with the first operator the ability to access the second work vehicle.  
Johnson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a first user computing device associated with the first operator ([0048] – mobile device 102), wherein the computing system is configured to grant the first operator the ability to access the first work vehicle by granting the first user computing device associated with the first operator the ability to access the first work vehicle ([0089-0090, 0124] – customer associated with the mobile device 102 is authorized to pick up the rental vehicle… instructing the vehicle to unlock the doors so customer gains access).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Johnson into the invention of Mckeeman with a reasonable expectation of success in order to more conveniently and efficiently allow access to vehicles (Johnson – [0004]). This would prevent theft of the vehicles and eliminate the need for someone to pass off physical keys to the operators for accessing and starting the vehicles.
Furthermore, the steps regarding the second work vehicle are identical to the steps regarding the first work vehicle, and therefore is merely a duplication of the same process, which is a generally obvious modification that would yield predictable results. Specifically, the process for granting access to the second work vehicle would logically be the same as for granting access to the first work vehicle in order to provide a secure way to allow an operator to access both vehicles as needed to perform the services.

Regarding claim 8, Mckeeman does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the computing system is configured to communicate with the first user computing device via an application operating on the first user computing device.  
Johnson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the computing system is configured to communicate with the first user computing device via an application operating on the first user computing device ([0048, 0050, 0058, 0076] – mobile application 250 installed on mobile device 102… communication with the rental computer system 106).  
The motivation to combine Mckeeman and Johnson is the same as in the rejection of claim 7.

Regarding claim 9, Mckeeman does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first user computing device is configured to communicate with the first work vehicle and the second work vehicle to allow the first operator to access the first work vehicle and the second work vehicle.  
Johnson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the first user computing device is configured to communicate with the first work vehicle to allow the first operator to access the first work vehicle ([0089-0090, 0124] – customer associated with the mobile device 102 is authorized to pick up the rental vehicle… instructing the vehicle to unlock the doors so customer gains access… mobile application can cause the mobile device to signal the driver about the confirmation).  
The motivation to combine Mckeeman and Johnson is the same as in the rejection of claim 7.

Regarding claim 10, Mckeeman does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the computing system is further configured to: indicate to the first operator that the first operator has access to the first work vehicle in response to granting the first operator the ability to access the first work vehicle; and indicate to the first operator to that the first operator has access to the second work vehicle in response to granting the first operator the ability to access the second work vehicle.  
Johnson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the computing system is further configured to: indicate to the first operator that the first operator has access to the first work vehicle in response to granting the first operator the ability to access the first work vehicle ([0089-0090, 0124] – customer associated with the mobile device 102 is authorized to pick up the rental vehicle… instructing the vehicle to unlock the doors so customer gains access… mobile application can cause the mobile device to signal the driver about the confirmation).
The motivation to combine Mckeeman and Johnson is the same as in the rejection of claim 7.

Regarding claims 18-20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 7-8 and 10, respectively, and it has been determined that claims 18-20 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 7-8 and 10; therefore, claims 18-20 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 7-8 and 10.

	
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Moreno (US 2020/0193356 A1) is directed to a method for staffing a commercial vehicle with a driver includes sending to a server, by a dispatch computing device associated with a job dispatcher, a job order to staff a commercial vehicle with a driver. The method includes receiving, from a driver computing device associated with the driver, an identification of the driver and one or more driver qualifications. The method includes verifying, by the server, the one or more driver qualifications in response to receiving the identification of the driver and the one or more driver qualifications. The method includes receiving, from the driver computing device, a request to be assigned to the job order. The method includes assigning, by the dispatch computing device, the job order to the driver by accepting the request received from the driver computing device.
Ehrman (US 2009/0099898 A1) is directed to a system for managing a fleet of mobile assets is disclosed. The system comprises vehicle asset communicators coupled to mobile assets/vehicles, local monitors in wireless communication with the communicators, and a controller in communication with the communicators. The controller comprising logic configured to receive work requests to be completed by the fleet and heuristically determine which mobile asset/vehicle to assign each work request to. The controller can receive real-time operational information related to the fleet to assist in the determination of which mobile asset/vehicle is best suited to complete the work request. The communicators enable the operators of the mobile assets/vehicles to accept or decline the work request, and to cancel the work request after acceptance or report to the system that the work request has been completed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.





/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669                                                                                                                                                                                                        
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669