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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment received 12/29/2025.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 2, 9, and 16 are amended. Claims 2-22 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The amendment has been fully considered, but is not sufficient to overcome the the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of claims 2-22.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 arguments – Applicant’s arguments (Remarks at pgs. 9-13) with respect to the §101 rejection of claims 2-22 have been considered, but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that “Claim 2…is not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to a specific technical improvement in the processing of spatial data to reduce noise in database analytics” (Remarks at pg. 10), this argument is not found persuasive because the sequence of claim steps and the result in the form of generating and presenting a performance assessment of a vehicle dealer, as recited by independent claims 2/9/16, are not reasonably considered as encompassing a technical solution to a technical problem, nor have the claims been shown to result in an improvement to a database noise reduction related thereto. Notably, the claims do not recite or require a database, database analytics, or noise reduction. Therefore, Applicant’s argument’s is unpersuasive because it relies on applying a narrower interpretation than the claim language requires by seeking to import limitations from the specification, which is impermissible. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also, CollegeNet, Inc. v. Apply Yourself Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (while the specification can be examined for proper context of a claim term, limitations from the specification will not be imported into the claims).
Applicant’s argument reling on the limitations for determining a difference value…, determining a normalizing distance…, and generating the metric, as recited in amended claim 2 (Remarks at pg. 12), has been considered, however the Examiner notes that these features fall squarely within the scope of the abstract idea itself because these steps describe activities for managing commercial interactions because they directly pertain to advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors pursuant to assessing vehicle dealer performance, and furthermore these steps could be performed as mental processes such as via human evaluation/judgment and pen/paper, and moreover, these steps may be implemented as mathematical calculations since determining a difference value can be accomplished via a subtraction mathematical operation, normalizing a distance via a median calculation is similarly achievable as a mathematical calculation, and generating a metric is described in the claim as involving a division mathematical operation (i.e., dividing a value by the normalizing distance).
Accordingly, the limitations alleged by applicant as “specific” and “non-conventional” fall within the realm of the abstract idea itself, and even assuming arguendo that one or more of these steps is specific or non-conventional, such specificity and/or novelty are insufficient to render claims as eligible. We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating §102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). Accordingly, applicant’s argument relying on the specificity of certain claim elements (the normalization) is insufficient to render the claims eligible.
Next, under Step 2A Prong Two, Applicant argues that “the amended claims integrate this concept into a practical application that improves the functioning of the computer system and the accuracy of data analysis” (Remarks at pg. 12). However, even assuming arguendo that an improvement to accuracy is achieved (which has not been shown), this would amount, at most, to an improvement to the abstract idea itself (e.g., more accurate zone/region for the performance assessment), though without any discernible improvement to the computing device, network, interface, or any technology in any discernible manner, and any benefit from using the computing device to perform the steps (e.g., faster than performing steps using pen/paper) merely result from using a generic computer as a tool to perform the steps rather than the sequence of steps/activities recited in the method itself and therefore such computerized execution of the steps does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claim. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”) (cited in the Federal Circuit's FairWarning decision).
Next, in response Applicant’s reliance on the CAFC’s McRO decision (Remarks at pg. 13), the Examiner emphasizes that the claims in McRO share virtually no similarities with Applicant’s invention. The claims in McRO were directed to a technological improvement over existing, manual 3-D animation techniques by using unconventional rules that relate sub-sequences or phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice, which transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by humans into a mathematically automated process executed on computers. No similar subject matter, technical field, or improvement appears to be contemplated in Applicant’s disclosure or achieved through Applicant’s claims. Notably, exemplary claim 1 of the McRO ‘576 patent applied the inventive solution in the final limitation of the claim by “applying said final applying said final stream of output morph weight sets to a sequence of animated characters to produce lip synchronization and facial expression control of said animated characters,” which is clearly a technological result/solution that was recognized by the CAFC as “a specific asserted improvement in computer animation,” which cannot be reasonably considered as being similar to applicant’s claimed method that results in the generation and presentation of a performance assessment for a vehicle dealer which involves a step falling within the scope of the abstract idea accompanied by insignificant extra-solution activity for providing the output, which is not analogous to the specific improvement noted in the McRO decision.
Under Step 2B, in response to applicant’s suggestion that the claims involve a “specific, inventive arrangement of data processing steps that solves a problem particular to the analysis of distributed transaction data” and that “It is not a well-understood, routine, or conventional activity to normalize dealer performance metrics by calculating the median of historical consumer travel distances for specific vehicle makes” (Remarks at pgs. 13-14), the Examiner first notes that applicant has not shown that the claims solve any technical problem particular to the analysis of distributed transaction data. Furthermore, the claimed generation of a normalized metric falls within the scope of the abstract idea itself because it describes advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors under the ”certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping, describes activity that may be implemented by a human such as by evaluation/judgment such as with the aid of pen and paper, and also thus falls under the “mental processes” abstract idea grouping, and even falls under the “mathematical concepts” abstract idea groping since the activities for generating the normalization metric are plainly and perhaps necessarily achieved by mathematical calculations (subtraction and division). Accordingly, applicant’s argument that certain claim features are not “well-understood, routine, or conventional” is insufficient to establish eligibility because the features relied upon by applicant fall within the scope of the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating §102 novelty.”).
For the reasons above along with the reasons below in the updated §101 rejection, the amendments and supporting arguments are not sufficient to overcome the §101 rejection.
Response to §103 arguments – Applicant’s arguments with respect to the §103 rejection of claims 2-22 have been considered, but are moot in view of the withdrawn of the §103 rejection.
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 2-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the subject matter eligibility guidance set forth in MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.03), it is first noted that the claimed method (claims 2-8), non-transitory computer readable medium (claims 9-15), and system (claims 16-22) are each directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, article of manufacture, and machine). Accordingly, claims 2-22 satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04), it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping by reciting limitations that set forth activities for managing commercial interactions (advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors) pursuant to assessing vehicle dealer performance, and it is further noted that numerous steps may be implemented as “Mental Processes” (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) or “Mathematical Concepts” (e.g., math formulas or calculations), as noted below. The limitations reciting the abstract idea, as set forth in independent claim 2 are identified in bold text below, whereas the additional elements are presented in plain text and are separately evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B:
receiving, by a vehicle data system embodied in a first computing device, a vehicle dealer of interest, wherein the vehicle data system is connected by a network to one or more data sources, each of the one or more data sources being external to the vehicle data system and having one or more respective interface through which data is accessed (The “receiving” step sets forth activity for managing commercial interactions (advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors) pursuant to assessing vehicle dealer performance. In addition, the “receiving” step is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution data gathering activity has also been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - 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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages 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));
obtaining, by the vehicle data system via the network, dealer location data from one or more data sources; obtaining, by the vehicle data system, historical vehicle sales transaction data from the one or more data sources using the one or more interfaces for each respective one of the data sources via the vehicle data system (The “obtaining” step sets forth activity for managing commercial interactions (advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors) pursuant to assessing vehicle dealer performance, and is also considered insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution data gathering activity has also been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - 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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages 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));
determining, by the vehicle data system, one or more geographical regions of interest and determining for each of the one or more geographical regions of interest a corresponding competition zone index that is a normalized quantitative measure of competitiveness, wherein determining the one or more geographical competition zones comprises, for each of the geographical regions of interest, generating a normalization metric by (The “determining” step sets forth activity for managing commercial interactions because the determination of geographical regions based on location and historical sales transaction data directly pertains to advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors pursuant to assessing vehicle dealer performance, and furthermore the “determining” may be implemented as a mental step, such as via human evaluation or judgment. In addition, the normalization describes mathematical calculations, e.g., adjusting the quantitative measures according to a scale, e.g., 0-100%, scaled to 1-thru-10, or the like);
determining from the collected dealer location data a difference value representing a difference between: a first distance between one or more dealers of interest and a geographical region of interest; and a second distance between one or more competing dealers and the geographical region of interest (The “determining” step sets forth activity for managing commercial interactions because the determination of a difference value in relation to dealers of interest and competing dealers directly pertains to advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors pursuant to assessing vehicle dealer performance, and furthermore the “determining” may be implemented as a mental step, such as via human evaluation or judgment. In addition, the determining of a difference value may be implemented as a mathematical calculation in the form of a simple subtraction step, e.g., subtracting a second distance from a first distance),
determining from the collected historical vehicle sales transaction data a normalizing distance associated with a set of vehicle sales transactions in the geographical region of interest, wherein determining the normalizing distance comprises examining a set of distances corresponding to the set of vehicle sales transactions in the geographical region of interest and selecting as the normalizing distance a median value of the set of distances corresponding to the set of vehicle sales transactions in the geographical region of interest, and dividing the determined difference value by the normalizing distance to generate the normalization metric (The “determining” step sets forth activity for managing commercial interactions because the determination of a normalizing distance directly pertains to advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors pursuant to assessing vehicle dealer performance, and furthermore the “determining” may be implemented as a mental step, such as via human evaluation or judgment, even if aided by pen and paper. In addition, the determining of a normalizing distance may be implemented as a mathematical calculation in the form of a division problem to generate the normalization metric, as plainly noted in the claim step);
identifying a competition zone associated with the vehicle dealer of interest based on the competition zone index corresponding to each of the geographical regions of interest, wherein the competition zone comprises a set of the geographical regions of interest having competition zone indices within a predetermined range of values (The “identifying” step sets forth activity for managing commercial interactions because this activity directly pertains to advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors pursuant to assessing vehicle dealer performance, and furthermore the “identifying” may be implemented as a mental step, such as via human evaluation or judgment, even if aided with pen and paper);
generating, by the vehicle data system, a performance assessment for the vehicle dealer of interest based on sales by the vehicle dealer of interest in the identified competition zone (The “generating” covers activity for managing commercial interactions because it directly pertains to advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors pursuant to assessing vehicle dealer performance, and also falls under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping since the generated performance assessment may be embodied as mathematical relationships, See e.g., the mathematical data chart depicted in Fig. 7); and
presenting the performance assessment via an interface on a second computing device connected to the vehicle data system (The “presenting” covers activity for managing commercial interactions because it directly pertains to advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors pursuant to assessing vehicle dealer performance, and also falls under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping since the presented performance assessment may be embodied as mathematical relationships, as exemplified in Fig. 7. In addition, the “presenting” step is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution data gathering activity has also been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - 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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages 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)).
Independent claims 9 and 16 recite similar limitations as those set forth in claim 2 as discussed above, and therefore have been determined to recite the same abstract idea as claim 2.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 2, 9, and 16 recite the additional elements of a vehicle data system embodied in a first computing device, wherein the vehicle data system is connected by a network to one or more data sources, each of the one or more data sources being external to the vehicle data system and having one or more respective interface through which data is accessed, one or more interfaces for each respective one of the data sources, a distributed and networked system, an interface on a second computing device connected to the vehicle data system, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a system, and a processor. The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the receiving, obtaining, or presenting activities are interpreted as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not indicative of a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claims 2, 9, and 16 recite the additional elements of a vehicle data system embodied in a first computing device, wherein the vehicle data system is connected by a network to one or more data sources, each of the one or more data sources being external to the vehicle data system and having one or more respective interface through which data is accessed, one or more interfaces for each respective one of the data sources, a distributed and networked system, an interface on a second computing device connected to the vehicle data system, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a system, and a processor. These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions/software to perform the abstract idea (See, e.g., Spec. at paragraphs 44 and 119-122), which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (network computing environment), similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element”).
Even if the receiving, obtaining, or presenting activities are interpreted as additional elements, these activities nevertheless amount to insignificant extra-solution data gathering or output activity, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - 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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages 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).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 3-8, 10-15, and 17-22 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and have been found to recite further details that are part of the same abstract ideas recited in the independent claims and discussed above by reciting steps/details setting forth activities for managing commercial interactions (advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors) pursuant to assessing vehicle dealer performance, steps that can be performed mentally, and/or steps that can be implemented as mathematical concepts (e.g., normalization metric in claims 4/13/18) implemented with the same additional elements recited in the independent claims which, as noted above, are not sufficient to transform the claims into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are 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 generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are 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 generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Allowable over the prior art
Claims 2-22 are allowable over the prior art. The closest prior art reference of record, Swinson et al. (US 2015/0134422), is directed to computer implemented features for varying affiliate position displayed by an intermediary using a vehicle data system. Swinson et al. and the other prior art of record teach several features of claims 2/9/16, including for example: receiving, by a vehicle data system embodied in a first computing device, a vehicle dealer of interest, wherein the vehicle data system is connected by a network to one or more data sources, each of the one or more data sources being external to the vehicle data system and having one or more respective interfaces through which data is accessed; obtaining, by the vehicle data system via the network, dealer location data from the one or more data sources; obtaining, by the vehicle data system, historical vehicle sales transaction data from the one or more data sources using the one or more interfaces for each respective one of the data sources via the vehicle data system; identifying a competition zone associated with the vehicle dealer of interest based on the competition zone index corresponding to each of the geographical regions of interest, wherein the competition zone comprises a set of the geographical regions of interest having competition zone indices within a predetermined range of values; generating, by the vehicle data system, a performance assessment for the vehicle dealer of interest based on sales by the vehicle dealer of interest in the identified competition zone; and presenting the performance assessment via an interface on a second computing device connected to the vehicle data system, as recited by claim 2 and as similarly encompassed by independent claims 9/16 (See Final OA mailed on 06/09/2025 for prior art citations pertinent to the above-noted limitations). However, Swinson et al. and the other prior art references of record do not teach or render obvious the claimed determining, by the vehicle data system, one or more geographical regions of interest and determining for each of the one or more geographical regions of interest a corresponding competition zone index that is a normalized quantitative measure of competitiveness, wherein determining the one or more geographical competition zones comprises, for each of the geographical regions of interest, generating a normalization metric by: determining from the collected dealer location data a difference value representing a difference between: a first distance between one or more dealers of interest and a geographical region of interest; and a second distance between one or more competing dealers and the geographical region of interest; determining from the collected historical vehicle sales transaction data a normalizing distance associated with a set of vehicle sales transactions in the geographical region of interest, wherein determining the normalizing distance comprises examining a set of distances corresponding to the set of vehicle sales transactions in the geographical region of interest and selecting as the normalizing distance a median value of the set of distances corresponding to the set of vehicle sales transactions in the geographical region of interest, and dividing the determined difference value by the normalizing distance to generate the normalization metric, as recited and arranged in combination with the other limitations of claim 2 and as similarly encompassed by independent claims 9/16. Claims 2-22 are not allowed, however, because they stand rejected under one or more of 35 USC §101, as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
LaCivita (US 2015/0310466): discloses sales analyzer systems and methods, including features for providing vehicle dealers with a comprehensive view of their sales performance (geographically or demographically), comparison of pricing relative to other dealers in a geographic area, and a dealer-interface accessible via a client device (at least paragraph 5 and Figs. 16-17).
Erenrich et al. (US Patent No. 8,938,686): discloses features for analyzing performance of an entity, including comparative analysis of the performance of different retail locations (col. 4, lines 46-67) and visual analytical techniques related thereto (at least Figs. 6-10).
Inman et al. (US 2016/0253682): discloses techniques for analyzing and improving dealer service market share, including calculating, benchmarking, and improvement guidance related thereto (See, e.g., Abstract and paragraphs 3-6).
Campos et al. (US 2006/0136462): discloses data-centric automatic data mining techniques, including features for gathering and analyzing dealership data to create KPI for understanding the performance of dealerships in a region (at least paragraph 75 and Fig. 2).
Moncreiff (US 2009/0248490): discloses features for performing competitive business analysis, including calculating regional statistics pertaining to dealer concentrations (at least paragraph 74).
Lingappa (US 2015/0032685): discloses visualization and comparison of business intelligence reports.
T. T. Lin, C. C. Lee and F. T. Chang, "A performance management on automobile dealers with applying data envelopment analysis," 2010 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 2010, pp. 380-384, doi: 10.1109/IEEM.2010.5674607: discloses techniques for evaluating operating performance of automobile dealers in pursuit of enhancing their overall efficiency.
Research framework, strategies, and applications of intelligent agent technologies (IATs) in marketing. Kumar, V; Dixit, Ashutosh; Javalgi, Rajshekar (raj); G; Dass, Mayukh. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 44.1: 24-45. Springer Nature B.V. (Jan 2016): discloses and overview of intelligent agent technologies, including its application to competitive intelligence/analytics.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Timothy A. Padot whose telephone number is 571.270.1252. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30 - 5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571.270.5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TIMOTHY PADOT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
01/13/2026