DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
[2] This communication is in response to the amendment filed 26 June 2025. Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[3] Applicant's remarks filed 26 June 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks will be addressed below in the order in which they appear in the noted response.
[i] In response to rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 10 April 2025, Applicant provides the following remarks:
"…the claims provide a solution that improves the ability for a computing device to determine the real-world value of and asset…Thus, the claims are tied to a practical application…"
Applicant further remarks:
“…the claims amount to an inventive concept significantly more than any abstract idea recited in the claims because the claims operate in a non-conventional and non-generic way…Like the claims in BASCOM, the current claims include elements that clearly operate in an unconventional and non-generic method…Applicant’s combinational elements, when viewed as a whole, are not mere processor instructions linking an abstract idea to a generic technological environment, but rather add significantly more than the abstract idea…”
In response, Examiner respectfully maintains that the claims as presented remain directed to ineligible subject matter. With respect to considerations under Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)):
Representative claim 1 retains the additional elements of: “first computing device”, “web-scraping of a web page”, “vendor computing devices”, and “display”.
As presented by amendment, representative claim 1 further clarifies that the previous recited “first computing device” receives information “…from a user device…” and further includes/specifies that the previously recited identifying a plurality of vendors is “…based on determining a current location of the user device based on one or more wireless signals received by the user device…”. As amended, representative claim 1 further amends previously recited generating and outputting steps to specify:
“…generating, based on one or more importance values corresponding to vehicle features associated with the first similar vehicle, a first normalized price associated with the first similar vehicle, wherein the first normalized price is based on a cost associated with each of the vehicle features relative to an importance value associated with each of the features;…”, “…generating a difference between the first offer price and the first normalized price, wherein the difference indicates a savings associated with the first similar vehicle;…”, and “…outputting, to a display associated with the user device, the first offer price, the first normalized price, and the difference…”
As presented by amendment, the claims provide further clarity with respect to the mathematical operations and processes performable by human mental processing by further reciting: “…the first normalized price is based on a cost associated with each of the vehicle features relative to an importance value associated with each of the features…” and “…generating a difference between the first offer price and the first normalized price, wherein the difference indicates a savings associated with the first similar vehicle…”. The further clarification is limited to recitation of additional mathematical processes of calculating a difference between a calculated normalized price and the first offer price.
As presented, the function(s) reasonably attributable to the claimed “…user device…” as added by amendment are limited to receiving or transmitting data or information via a network (e.g., location information, information identifying a target vehicle, and prices and calculated differences), and displaying information on a generically recited display (e.g., prices and calculated differences) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Respectfully, the additional technical elements including the clarifying recitations are limited to (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., vehicle data and offers); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., vehicle data); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., conducting processes to normalize and vectorize vehicle features and conducting a comparison using the vectors to identify similar vehicles and further adjust a price based on the comparison) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to any similarity between the arrangement of technical elements and functions of the instant claims and the example provided in accordance with the findings of the Court in Bascom Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Examiner agrees with Applicant’s observation that the Court indicated that the individual generic computing elements presented in the claims at issue were rendered statutory when considered as an ordered combination. However, Examiner respectfully submits that identification of user devices and computing devices having functions limited to sending, receiving, and displaying data as presented in the instant claims is not reasonably similar to the inventive arrangement or otherwise generic devices presented by the claims in Bascom. In Bascom, the arrangement was not merely a collection of computing devices arranged in a network configuration. Rather, the invention required that individualized filtering for individual client machines, when positioned in a central server location, provided for improved efficiency and effectiveness in maintained customized filter settings for client devices. In contrast to the improved method of individualized filtering for individual client machines, which can reasonably be considered an improvement to the inventive computing network, the instant claims are limited to ineligible mathematical calculations of values/prices and the general sending, receiving, and displaying of input information and calculated outputs.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully maintains that claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of identifying vehicles similar to a desired vehicle of a customer and executing a commercial process for selling the vehicle to the customer using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment, e.g., generic devices capable of storing and retrieving information from computer memory, transmitting and receiving information over a computer network, and performing known calculations otherwise performable by human mental processing and/or using pen and paper.
With respect to consideration of evidence that the claimed invention presents significantly more than the abstract idea under Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05):
Claim 1 retains the additional technical elements of: “first computing device”, “web-scraping of a web page”, “vendor computing devices”, and “display”.
As presented by amendment, representative claim 1 further clarifies that the previous recited “first computing device” receives information “…from a user device…” and further includes/specifies that the previously recited identifying a plurality of vendors is “…based on determining a current location of the user device based on one or more wireless signals received by the user device…”. As amended, representative claim 1 further amends previously recited generating and outputting steps to specify:
“…generating, based on one or more importance values corresponding to vehicle features associated with the first similar vehicle, a first normalized price associated with the first similar vehicle, wherein the first normalized price is based on a cost associated with each of the vehicle features relative to an importance value associated with each of the features;…”, “…generating a difference between the first offer price and the first normalized price, wherein the difference indicates a savings associated with the first similar vehicle;…”, and “…outputting, to a display associated with the user device, the first offer price, the first normalized price, and the difference…” (as noted above in consideration of candidate technical elements under step 2A prong 2).
The combination of technical elements fails to identify functions performed by the underlying technology that amount(s) to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. In support of Examiner’s maintained conclusion that the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0021]-[0031]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. As noted above the functions performed by the underlying technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., vehicle data and offers); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., vehicle data); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., conducting processes to normalize and vectorize vehicle features and conducting a comparison using the vectors to identify similar vehicles and further adjust a price based on the comparison) (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully maintains that the non-technical functions of identifying vehicles similar to a desired vehicle of a customer and executing a commercial process for selling the vehicle to the customer benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
[ii] Applicant’s remarks directed to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 10 April 2025 have been fully considered and are moot in light of newly added grounds of rejection responsive to the amendments to the subject claims.
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.
[4] Previous rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more has/have not been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are maintained. The statement of rejection below is reiterated as originally presented in the previous Office Action mailed 10 April 2025. The present amendments and remarks are addressed above under “Response to Remarks/Amendment”.
.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05). Claim(s) 1-20 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a method, a system, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1, 8, and 15 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of identifying vehicles similar to a desired vehicle of a customer and executing a commercial process for selling the vehicle to the customer, which is reasonably considered to be method of Organizing Human Activity. In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed presents a sequence of operations which compare similarities of vehicles based on a desired set of vehicle features and further conducts a bid/offer process to sell/deliver the vehicle to a customer, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations).
In support of Examiner’s conclusion, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the claim limitations of representative claim 1. In particular, claim 1 includes:
“…receiving…information identifying a target vehicle…”, “…extract vehicle features associated with the target vehicle…”, “…identifying, based on detecting a current location, a plurality of vendors within a geographical range of the detected current location…”, “…identify, based on the vectorized list of vehicle features, one or more similar vehicles having a threshold level of similarity to the target vehicle…”, “…sending…one or more bid requests for the one or more identified similar vehicles …”, “…receiving…a first offer for a first similar vehicle of the one or more identified similar vehicles at a first offer price…” and “…outputting…the first offer price and the first normalized price …”
Considered as an ordered combination, the steps/functions of claim 1 are reasonably considered to be representative of the inventive concept and are further reasonably understood to be series of actions or activities directed to a general process of identifying vehicles similar to a desired vehicle of a customer and executing a commercial process for selling the vehicle to the customer, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Further limitations are directed to ineligible processes/functions which are performable by Human Mental Processing and/or or by a human using pen and paper (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Lastly, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 1 recites:
“…normalizing, based on the information identifying the target vehicle and based on a mapping of manufacturer vehicle features to generic vehicles features, the extracted vehicle features…”, “…vectorizing the normalized vehicle features to generate a vectorized list of vehicle features…”, “…identify, based on the vectorized list of vehicle features, one or more similar vehicles having a threshold level of similarity to the target vehicle…”, and “…generating, based on one or more importance values corresponding to vehicle features associated with the first similar vehicle, a first normalized price associated with the first similar vehicle…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited computing devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that conducting processes to normalize and vectorize vehicle features and conducting a comparison using the vectors to identify similar vehicles and further adjust a price based on the comparison are practicable/performable by a human using pen and paper and/or employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
The technical elements identified in claim 1 include: “first computing device”, “web-scraping of a web page”, “vendor computing devices”, and “display”. Claims 8 and 15 further recite “one or more processors”, “memory”, and “computer-readable instructions”. With respect to these potential additional elements, the claimed “devices” are identified as sending and receiving information and displaying offer prices. The claimed “one or more processors”, “memory”, and “computer-readable instructions” are identified as generally engaged in each step/function of the independent claims. These technical elements and the recited functions constitute technical features which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Additional elements of claim 1 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject matter include: “first computing device”, “web-scraping of a web page”, “vendor computing devices”, and “display”.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: (1) There are no additional elements in the claim; (2) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f); (3) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g); and/or (4) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., vehicle information is received, vectorized and compared, offers are sent/received, prices are adjusted or normalized, prices are displayed etc.) as associated with a respective “device” or “display”. The limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the “devices/processors” and “display” in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “by a device” or “by a processor”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., vehicle data and offers); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., vehicle data); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., conducting processes to normalize and vectorize vehicle features and conducting a comparison using the vectors to identify similar vehicles and further adjust a price based on the comparison) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of identifying vehicles similar to a desired vehicle of a customer and executing a commercial process for selling the vehicle to the customer using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed identifying vehicles similar to a desired vehicle of a customer and executing a commercial process for selling the vehicle to the customer benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0021]-[0031]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include: The claimed “devices” are identified as sending and receiving information and displaying offer prices. The claimed “one or more processors”, “memory”, and “computer-readable instructions” are identified as generally engaged in each step/function of the independent claims. While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., vehicle data and offers); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., vehicle data); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., conducting processes to normalize and vectorize vehicle features and conducting a comparison using the vectors to identify similar vehicles and further adjust a price based on the comparison).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of identifying vehicles similar to a desired vehicle of a customer and executing a commercial process for selling the vehicle to the customer. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., identifying vehicles similar to a desired vehicle of a customer and executing a commercial process for selling the vehicle to the customer, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of identifying vehicles similar to a desired vehicle of a customer and executing a commercial process for selling the vehicle to the customer benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claims 8 and 15, directed to an apparatus/system and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
In accordance with all relevant considerations and aligned with previous findings of the courts, the technical elements imparted on the method that would potentially provide a basis for meeting a “significantly more” threshold for establishing patent eligibility for an otherwise abstract concept by the use of computer technology fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
[5] Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanuja et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0364783) in view of Stutsman et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0251586) and further in view of Ouimet (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0325653 hereinafter ‘Ouimet’)
With respect to (currently amended) claim 1, Ramanuja discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a first computing device, information identifying a target vehicle (Ramanuja et al.; paragraphs [0038]-[0041]; See at least user query generates vehicle features and information for a user-defined vehicle configuration); accessing a web page associated with the information identifying the target vehicle (Ramanuja et al.; paragraphs [0063] [0114]-[0119]; See at least vehicle information retrieved using virtual vehicle configuration and dealership website, i.e., scraping webpages); performing web-scraping of the web page to extract vehicle features associated with the target vehicle (Ramanuja et al.; paragraphs [0051]-[0063] [0119]-[0121]; See at least information generated or “scraped” from user interactions and configurations on website and compared to vehicle features of inventory vehicles from dealer systems/websites); normalizing, based on the information identifying the target vehicle and based on a mapping of manufacturer vehicle features to generic vehicles features, the extracted vehicle features (Ramanuja et al.; paragraphs [0063] [0092]-[0098] [0103]-[0104] and Table 2; See at least normalizing similarity features. See further example of mapping vehicle color attributes to manufactures color groups); vectorizing the normalized vehicle features to generate a vectorized list of vehicle features (Ramanuja et al.; paragraphs [0044] [0045] [0063]; See at least generating vectors by transforming vehicle attributes); identifying, based on detecting a current location, a plurality of vendors within a geographical range of the detected current location (Ramanuja et al.; paragraphs [0044]-[0050]; See at least generating similar vehicle within a defined area); accessing a plurality of vendor computing devices, corresponding to the plurality of vendors, to identify, based on the vectorized list of vehicle features, one or more similar vehicles having a threshold level of similarity to the target vehicle (Ramanuja et al.; paragraphs [0063] [0109]-[0113]; See at least a plurality of dealer inventories of vehicles used to perform similarity scoring and presentation of scored vehicles); sending, to one or more vendor computing devices of the plurality of vendor computing devices, one or more bid requests for the one or more identified similar vehicles (Ramanuja et al.; paragraphs [0028] [0029] [0047]-[0060]; See at least user requests offers on similar vehicles); receiving, from a first vendor computing device of the one or more vendor computing devices, a first offer for a first similar vehicle of the one or more identified similar vehicles at a first offer price (Ramanuja et al.; paragraphs [0029] [0047]-[0060] [0121]; See at least offers and pricing and Live Offer interactions); and outputting, to a display associated with the first computing device, the first offer price (Ramanuja et al.; paragraphs [0029] [0047]-[0060] [0121]; See at least offers and pricing and Live Offer interactions).
With respect to generating a normalized price based on importance values, Ramanuja discloses assigning a relative importance weighting to features and attributes of vehicles to calculate a similarity score for each assessed vehicle. The importance values/weights directly translate into a recommendation for a vehicle and an offer process. While Ramanuja discounts scoring based on relative importance of features, Ramanuja fails to specify that the relative importance values translate into a reduced offer or bid price, i.e., a normalized price based on similarity to the preferred vehicle.
However, as evidenced by Stutsman et al. it is well-known to the commercial vehicle sales field to incrementally raise or lower a process/offer for a vehicle based on a relative matching of weighted vehicle attributes (Stutsman et al.; paragraphs [0028]-[0030] [0078]-[0080]; See at least adjustment of process based on similarity assessment and scoring and further based on specified desirable attributes, e.g., mileage, quality scores, make, model etc. The adjustment in process is reasonably a form of normalizing prices by discounting, incrementally, prices based on adherence/similarity to specified vehicle attributes).
As presented by amendment, representative claim 1 further clarifies that the previous recited “first computing device” receives information “…from a user device…” and further includes/specifies that the previously recited identifying a plurality of vendors is “…based on determining a current location of the user device based on one or more wireless signals received by the user device…”. As amended, representative claim 1 further amends previously recited generating and outputting steps to specify: “…generating, based on one or more importance values corresponding to vehicle features associated with the first similar vehicle, a first normalized price associated with the first similar vehicle, wherein the first normalized price is based on a cost associated with each of the vehicle features relative to an importance value associated with each of the features;…”, “…generating a difference between the first offer price and the first normalized price, wherein the difference indicates a savings associated with the first similar vehicle;…”, and “…outputting, to a display associated with the user device, the first offer price, the first normalized price, and the difference…”.
With respect to these elements, Ramanuja discloses identifying vehicles within a defined geographic location, but fails to specify that the location is based on wireless connections of a user device. Further, as noted above, while Ramanuja discounts scoring based on relative importance of features, Ramanuja fails to specify that the relative importance values translate into a reduced offer or bid price, i.e., a normalized price based on similarity to the preferred vehicle.
As noted above, Stutsman discloses incrementally raising or lowering a process/offer for a vehicle based on a relative matching of weighted vehicle attributes. However, Stutsman fails to disclose displaying an initial price, a normalized price and a difference on a user device display. Stutsman further fails to disclose determining retail locations based on wireless connections of a user device.
However, as evidenced by Ouimet, it is well-known to the e-commerce art to identify retailers proximal to a user based on a device interaction over a wireless connection (Ouimet et al.; paragraphs [0086] [0109] [0110] and Fig. 16; See at least user device connections via wireless connections. See further identification of locations of retailers on map based on user device location).
Ouimet further discloses utilizing customer weighting of relative importance of product attributes to identify matched products at identified vendors and further including normalizing pricing based on the relative importance of the product attributes to the consumer and further displaying an initial price, a normalized final price, and a difference on a display of the consumer device (Ouimet et al.; paragraphs [0102]-[0108] [0118]-[0120]; See at least price normalization and displays based on input preference weighting and identified products at proximal vendors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the similarity scoring adjustments as a function of relative importance features of Ramanuja by further including incremental adjustment of price/offers based on relative importance of vehicle features and attributes as taught by Stutsman. The instant invention is directed to a system and method for matching and valuing inventory vehicles on the basis of similarities in vehicle features to a model or target vehicle. As Ramanuja disclose the use of similarity scoring adjustments as a function of relative importance features in the context of a system and method for matching and valuing inventory vehicles on the basis of similarities in vehicle features to a model or target vehicle, and Stutsman similarly discloses the utility of incremental adjustment of price/offers based on relative importance of vehicle features and attributes in the context of a system and method for matching and valuing inventory vehicles on the basis of similarities in vehicle features to a model or target vehicle, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of predictably providing pricing predictive modelling to generate accurate vehicle value recommendations (Stutsman et al.; paragraph [0012]).
Regarding the combination that further includes Ouimet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified vehicle feature normalization/scoring and product matching based on location features of Ramanuja by further including identifying retailers proximal to a user based on a device interaction over a wireless connection and normalizing pricing based on the relative importance of the product attributes to the consumer and further displaying an initial price, a normalized final price, and a difference on a display of the consumer device as taught by Ouimet. The instant invention is directed to a system and method for matching and valuing inventory vehicles on the basis of similarities in vehicle features to a model or target vehicle. As Ramanuja disclose the use of vehicle feature normalization/scoring and product matching based on location in the context of a system and method for matching and valuing inventory vehicles on the basis of similarities in vehicle features to a model or target vehicle, and Ouimet similarly discloses the utility of identifying retailers proximal to a user based on a device interaction over a wireless connection and normalizing pricing based on the relative importance of the product attributes to the consumer and further displaying an initial price, a normalized final price, and a difference on a display of the consumer device in the context of a system and method for matching and valuing inventory products on the basis of similarities in product features, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of predictably providing pricing predictive modelling to generate accurate and tailored product value-based recommendations.
With respect to claim 2, Ramanuja discloses a method wherein the information identifying the target vehicle comprises: manufacturer identification information (Ramanuja et al.; paragraphs [0007] [0119] [0122]; See at least VIN and equipment numbers); and a manufacturer build code identifying a user build of a vehicle associated with a manufacturer identified by the manufacturer identification information (Ramanuja et al.; paragraphs [0007] [0119] [0122]; See at least VIN and equipment numbers and features/options provided by manufacturers as part of the build) and wherein the method further comprises identifying, based on the manufacturer identification information, the web page associated with the information identifying the target vehicle (Ramanuja et al.; paragraphs [0007] [0041] [0119]; See at least dealer websites and VIN display of vehicles).
With respect to (currently amended) claim 3, Ramanuja discloses a method wherein accessing the plurality of vendor computing devices to identify the one or more similar vehicles having the threshold level of similarity to the target vehicle comprises: identifying, based on normalizing vehicle features of a plurality of inventory vehicles in an inventory of a vendor associated with a corresponding vendor computing device, one or more inventory vehicles having one or more of the normalized vehicle features of the target vehicle (Ramanuja et al.; paragraphs [0063] [0110]; See at least similarity analysis performed on inventory vehicles); and for each of the one or more inventory vehicles having the one or more of the normalized vehicle features of the target vehicle: generating a similarity score; and determining that the similarity score satisfies the threshold level of similarity (Ramanuja et al.; paragraphs [0108]-[0113] [0121]; See at least similarity scores and thresholds).
With respect to claim 5, Ramanuja discloses receiving, from a second vendor computing device of the one or more vendor computing devices, a second offer for a second similar vehicle, of the one or more identified similar vehicles, at a second offer price (Ramanuja et al.; paragraphs [0028] [0029] [0047]-[0060]; See at least user requests offers on similar vehicles).
While Ramanuja discloses assigning a relative importance weighting to features and attributes of vehicles to calculate a similarity score for each assessed vehicle. The importance values/weights directly translate into a recommendation for a vehicle and an offer process. While Ramanuja discounts scoring based on relative importance of features, Ramanuja fails to specify that the relative importa