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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 2, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18 were currently pending. Claims 1, 7, and 13 were amended in the reply filed February 2, 2026. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. "As amended, each of independent claims 1, 7, and 13 further recites how the web page is generated and communicated to the client device in response to the vehicle data system receiving the user input data from the client device." Remarks, 12. The only recited detail beyond generic high-level Internet communications and commonplace webpage-serving interfaces is the abstract content itself (i.e., vehicle prices).
"In this case, as described in the Application and at least illustrated in FIGURE 9, the visual interface recited in the claims can make a server computer that implements the recited vehicle data system perform more efficiently." Remarks, 12. The Specification only broadly supports efficiency of "the process" (i.e., the business process of providing updated vehicle prices) by pre-processing values prior to the user requesting them (published Specification, ¶ 0030). This is an improvement to commercial operations (i.e., preparing economic values in advance for the user before they are explicitly requested) rather than the computer itself or any other technological element.
"We have also held that improving a user's experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality. For example, in Trading Techs. I, we held patent ineligible claims directed to a computer-based method for facilitating the placement of a trader's order. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. I). Although the claimed display purportedly 'assist[ed] traders in processing information more quickly,' we held that this purported improvement in user experience did not 'improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Id.; see also Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1381, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. II) (holding that claims 'focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly' did not constitute a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality)." Customedia Technologies v. Dish Network, 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Compare these with published Specification ¶ 0037 ("Using these types of visual presentations may enable a user to better understand the pricing data related to a specific vehicle configuration.").
"Further, the visual interface recited in the claims is tied to a specific, non-abstract technical implementation, rather than a broad, generic, or mental process. See e.g., Application, paragraphs [0007], [0009], [0011], [0025]-[0026], [0030], [0032], [0035], [0037], [0053], [0081]- [0082], FIGURE 9." Remarks, 12. The basis of the rejection is not that the process is broad, generic, or mental. All of the passages cited set forth a process of mathematical manipulation of economic data performed via generic computers. "The focus of the claims... is on selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis. That is all abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d, 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
"As amended, each of independent claims 1, 7, and 13 now recites specific technical components that together enable unique screen manipulation, for instance, 'user-adjustable user interface elements for adjusting the one or more factors and individual pieces of the used vehicle configuration so as to increase efficiency of the front end online process while tailoring to the used vehicle configuration in the location.'" Remarks, 12. It is not clear what is unique about "user-adjustable user interface elements." Adjustable interface elements such as sliders, buttons, etc. are present on nearly every interface. Generic interface elements such as these that merely allow the user to update which financial information is displayed cannot serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the recited representative functions of the independent claims—including:
presenting used vehicle pricing for a geographic area;
obtaining data from distributed data sources, the data from the distributed data sources including historical transaction data comprising: individual historical transaction data for a plurality of vehicles having a plurality of vehicle configurations in a plurality of geographic regions, wherein each vehicle configuration in the plurality of vehicle configurations comprise one or more factors, including a year, make and model, and wherein the individual historical transaction data for the plurality of sold vehicles comprises sale prices and vehicle specific usage data for the plurality of sold vehicles;
storing the historical transaction data for the plurality of vehicle configurations;
performing a process divided into a back end process and a front end process, the back end process performed at a time interval preceding and asynchronously to the front end process, wherein the back end process comprises: clustering the historical transaction data for the plurality of sold vehicles into a clustered dataset, the clustered dataset including a subset of the historical transaction data of a plurality of sold vehicles of different makes, wherein the subset of the historical transaction data for the plurality of sold vehicles includes a vehicle configuration factor common to the plurality of sold vehicles in the subset to overcome sparse historical transaction data; generating a boosting model from the clustered dataset of historical transaction data for modelling pricing adjustments for an average vehicle based on the vehicle configuration factors of the subset, wherein the boosting model comprises an exponentially weighted moving average St=αYt-1+(1- α)St-1, wherein St represents the exponentially weighted moving average in week t, St-1 represents the exponentially weighted moving average in week t-1, α is a parameter controlling how quickly historical transactions are discounted and Yt-1 is price of transactions occurring in week t-1; generating a regionality model based on the historical transaction data and the plurality of geographic regions, the regionality model incorporating factors including seasonality and regionality; standardizing the historical transaction data by applying the boosting model to the historical transaction data to adjust the sales price associated with each historical individual transaction;Attorney Docket No.Application No. 16/433,521TCAR1620-1Customer ID: 44654 5storing the boosting model; and wherein the front end process comprises: receiving, from a client, user input data about a used vehicle in a location, including a user vehicle configuration including values for each of the one or more factors for the used vehicle configuration; responsive to the user input data that includes the values for the used vehicle configuration, determining a base model value from a back-end process for the used vehicle based on the standardized historical transaction data for the used vehicle configuration and the user input data that includes the values for the used vehicle configuration;
adjusting the base model value for the used vehicle using the boosting model to generate a final price for the used vehicle configuration based on the values for each of the one or more factors for the used vehicle configuration;
adjusting the final price for the used vehicle based on the location and the regionality model;
generating the adjusted final price for the used vehicle; and
communicating the [adjusted final price] in response to receiving the user input data;
configuring the values for the used vehicle configuration in the location, the configuring including adjusting the one or more factors and individual pieces of the used vehicle configuration so as to increase efficiency of the front end process while tailoring to the used vehicle configuration in the location.
This qualifies as a certain method of organizing human activities because it recites collecting, analyzing, and outputting information to arrive at optimal price values for vehicles (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance fundamental economic practices; commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)). Additionally, aside from the general technological environment (addressed below), it recites several mathematical relationships/calculations (i.e., mathematically modeling and adjusting the models to arrive at a numerical result (i.e., a price) based on other numerical data, inputs, factors, and formulas (see published Specification ¶¶ 0027, 60-77, 82 and their analogous recitations in the claim)).
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015)—determining a price using organizational and product group hierarchies, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as determining a price using vehicle configurations and other data; OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)—price optimization based on factors such as offers, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as price modeling based on factors such as vehicle configurations, transaction data, etc.).
These cases all describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (server computer with a visual interface that provides a web site or web service on Internet, the visual interface having user interface elements, the server computer having a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions; processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, data store, "online process," client device with a visual interface, generating a web page; and communicating the web page to the client device, wherein the web page is generated and communicated to the client device in response to the vehicle data system receiving the user input data from the client device, configuring the user interface elements with user-adjustable user interface elements—all recited at a high level of generality).
Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, "vehicle data application," etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added). The generating and communicating of the web page to the client device in response to the vehicle data system receiving the user input data from the client device can also be considered an insignificant extra-solution activity which is merely outputting the result of the abstract pricing algorithm to the user (i.e., an insignificant application of technology tangentially related to the invention similar to the printing or downloading of menus in Ameranth—see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above (i.e., by applying the abstract idea in the context of generic computerized devices connected via the Internet). Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements. See published Specification describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements (server computer with a visual interface that provides a web site or web service on Internet, the visual interface having user interface elements, the server computer having a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions (published Specification ¶¶ 0037, 95, 100-102), data store (¶ 0036), vehicle data application (¶ 0034), "online process" (i.e., a process running on the Internet—¶ 0095), client device with a visual interface (¶ 0035), generating a web page (¶ 0035), and communicating the web page to the client device, wherein the web page is generated and communicated to the client device in response to the vehicle data system receiving the user input data from the client device (¶ 0035)), configuring the user interface elements with user-adjustable user interface elements (¶ 0026; see also Fig. 9 showing conventional interface elements such as sliders, which are not described in the disclosure at any level of detail).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they only further limit aspects of the same abstract idea identified above without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, when viewed in combination the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general link to technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims (i.e., generic computers and the Internet).
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general link to a technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements beyond it. The Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights