DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 4/28/2025, Applicant, on 7/18/2025, amended Claims 1, 5-7, 10-12, and 15-16, and cancelled Claim 4. Claims 1, 5-7, 10-12, and 15-16 are pending in this action, have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant states the amended limitations are not an abstract idea of a mental process or method of organizing human activity. Examiner disagrees as the claims are directed at abstract processes of a “Mental Process” and a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”, as the claims recite limitations for the purposes of determining a vehicle for a user based on their propensities, which is clearly both a Mental Process and Method of Organizing Activity as per the rejection below, and this was a mere allegation of eligibility under 101. Further, the claims are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies such as a server to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It” for the purpose of matching a vehicle and a user. There is no improvement to a technology or any technological process, and the vehicles, server, devices and other technologies are not improved. This is “Applying It”, similar to Alice, on a generic computing system.
Applicant asserts the amended limitations of the claims, summarizes the limitations of the claims, and then states that the amended claims recite limitations which perform a user propensity analysis which is not a survey based approach, but utilizes a data processing procedure based on a user’s actual driving behavior, including ratings and ratio, which Applicant states are distinguished from mere data analysis. Applicant further states that providing the information on a screen, enabling real-time vehicle analysis through user interaction, and that the claim is practically integrated because of it. Examiner disagrees as outside of the use of a screen, user interface, service, server, and other additional elements, nothing in the claim would be considered practically integrated. The use of a users driving history, fuel system type, and the calculation of scores are all abstract processes/processing of information which merely utilize current technologies to perform these abstract limitations. There is no improvement to any technology, technological process, or additional element, alone or in combination, and any purported improvement is part of the abstraction and thus this is not significantly more nor practically integrated.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
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.
Alice – Claims 1, 5-7, 10-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 12 is directed to limitations for providing a question for a user and a user propensity test to an application through a user terminal (Transmitting Information, a judgement, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity); receiving responses to the question for the user and the user propensity test from the user terminal (Collecting Information, an observation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity); calculating first weights on user propensity elements based on the response to the user propensity test (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity); and determining a user propensity which indicates personal propensities that may be considered by the user when purchasing a vehicle based on the first weights (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity); calculating second weights on vehicle propensity elements which correspond to the user propensity elements on a plurality of vehicles (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity); calculating a plurality of vehicle propensities for indicating vehicle characteristics that correspond to the user propensity on a plurality of vehicles based on the second weights, wherein calculating the plurality of vehicle propensities comprises extracting a platform applying time determined from a year-based model of each of the vehicles and a used fuel type from vehicle data and determining one of the second weights by summing platform scores according to the platform applying time and energy source scores according to the used fuel type (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity); determining a plurality of target vehicles belonging to a vehicle purchase budget range of the user from among the plurality of vehicles (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity); and determining at least one optimal vehicle from among the target vehicles based on matching degrees of the user propensity and vehicle propensity corresponding to the respective target vehicles above the plurality of vehicle propensities (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity) wherein the user propensity test includes questions required by the service providing server to determine the user propensity (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and wherein calculating the second weights on vehicle propensity elements which correspond to the user propensity elements on a plurality of vehicles comprises: determining the energy source score by summing a score according to the used fuel type of the vehicle and a score according to a type of a fuel system of the vehicle, computing platform score differences for respective years by dividing a difference between a highest score of a platform score and a lowest score of the platform score by a difference between a current year and a year in which a first platform among platforms applied to commercial vehicles is applied (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and determining the platform score by multiplying a number of years from the platform applying time of the vehicle to the current year with the platform score difference for respective years (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), wherein determining the user propensity comprises, in response to receiving a response to a high-speed driving ratio query of the user from the user terminal, determining a high-speed driving ratio of the user according to the response, wherein calculating the plurality of vehicle propensities further comprises: determining a driving technology score and a stopping technology score based on functions supported by each of a plurality of option specifications applied to the vehicle, wherein the functions include at least one of driving assistance and stopping assistance (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determining a technology option score by considering the driving technology score, the high-speed driving ratio, the stopping technology score, and a low-speed driving ratio according to the high-speed driving ratio (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and determining the second weight on the one of the vehicle propensity elements on the vehicle based on the platform score, the energy source score, and the technology option score (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), wherein the method further comprises transmitting data for indicating the optimal vehicle to the user terminal, and to provide a screen indicating the optimal vehicle via the user terminal (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an evaluation and judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of organizing and tracking information for Managing Human Activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting use of a server, processor, memory, collecting unit, user propensity determining unit, vehicle propensity calculating unit, user terminal, system, application, screen, and optimal vehicle determining unit, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Organizing and Tracking information for Managing Human Activity for managing user activity. For example, providing a question for a user and a user propensity test, receiving responses to the question for the user and the test, and determining user propensity based on the responses encompasses a supervisor employee at the DMV who gives a new driver a test to see if they can drive a vehicle, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for organizing and tracking information for Managing Human Activity, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The server, processor, memory, collecting unit, user propensity determining unit, vehicle propensity calculating unit, user terminal, system, service providing server, and optimal vehicle determining unit are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmission steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0031] A vehicle purchase information service may include a service for providing information on vehicles purchasable by the user to a user terminal through an application. [0032] The vehicle recommending system 1 may include a service providing server 11 and a user terminal 12, which are connected to each other in a network. An application 121 is installed in the user terminal 12. As is already known, the service providing server 11 may be realized with a processor for executing program codes or instructions stored in a memory.”
Which is all the detail that is given for the system and terminals, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the system, memory, processor, etc., nor the receiving and transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent Claims 1 and 7 contain the identified abstract ideas, with no new additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claims 5-6, 10-11, and 15-16 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-12, and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection and any other rejections.
The closest prior art of record are Gormley (U.S. Publication No. 2020/011,1143), Esposito (U.S. Publication No. 2017/027,0580), and Estes (U.S. Publication No. 2023/026,0046). Gormly, a system and method for vehicle customization and personalization activities, teaches providing a question for a user and a user propensity test to an application through a user terminal, calculating a plurality of vehicle propensities for indicating vehicle characteristics on a plurality of vehicles, wherein calculating the plurality of vehicle propensities comprises extracting a platform applying time of each of the vehicles and a used fuel type from vehicle data and determining a weight on one of a plurality of vehicle propensity elements on the vehicle by summing platform scores according to the platform applying time and energy source scores according to the used fuel type, determining a plurality of target vehicles belonging to a vehicle purchase budget range of the user from among the plurality of vehicles, receiving responses to the question for the use from the user terminal and determining a user propensity based on the responses, determining at least one optimal vehicle from among the target vehicles based on matching degrees of the user propensity and the respective target vehicles, and determining and summing a score as in Claim 1 above, as well as a fuel type being one of the features of the score, it does not explicitly state a propensity being used and a score a matching a vehicle based on the scores. Esposito, a method and system for facilitating purchase of vehicles by buyers and/or sale of vehicles by sellers, teaches a propensity based on a scoring of a user with a vehicle and this is a propensity to buy as in Applicant’s Specification and determining the weight on the one of the plurality of vehicle propensity elements, but not the calculation of second weights for propensities. Estes, a system and method for automatic detection of gig-economy activity systems and activity, teaches weighting of risk scores, weighting the remaining data, and rating and weighting the optimization of gig types, such as driving a vehicle, but it does not teach the propensity with regards to the weight. None of the above prior art explicitly teaches extraction of a platform applying time determined by the year-based model, in combination with the calculation of first and second weights which attribute vehicle propensity elements with user propensity elements on vehicles, along with the other limitations, which Applicant points out in the Remarks of 9/18/2024 on pgs. 4 and 5, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1-16 are allowable over the prior art of record, and are objected to as provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230260046 A1
Estes; Hannah et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATIC DETECTION OF GIG-ECONOMY ACTIVITYSYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATIC DETECTION OF GIG-ECONOMY ACTIVITY
US 20200111143 A1
Gormley; Joseph
VEHICLE CUSTOMIZATION AND PERSONALIZATION ACTIVITIES
US 20170270580 A1
Esposito; Thomas et al.
Method and System for Facilitating Purchase of Vehicles by Buyers and/or Sale of Vehicles by Sellers
US 20230332909 A1
KONRARDY; Blake et al.
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE COMPONENT DAMAGE AND SALVAGE ASSESSMENT
US 20230326268 A1
Cronin; John
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USER-DEFINED ELECTRIC VEHICLE SUPERCAPACITOR BATTERIES
US 20230215225 A1
Filipowicz; Alexandre et al.
ELECTRIC VEHICLE SIMULATION
US 20230145208 A1
Bobu; Andreea et al.
CONCEPT TRAINING TECHNIQUE FOR MACHINE LEARNING
US 20220222984 A1
Singh; Shuchi et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR VEHICLE-SPECIFIC INSPECTION AND RECONDITIONING
US 20220194401 A1
Gee; Robert Allen et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ENHANCING VEHICLE PERFORMANCE USING MACHINE LEARNING
US 20220189482 A1
Penilla; Angel A. et al.
METHODS AND VEHICLES FOR CAPTURING EMOTION OF A HUMAN DRIVER AND CUSTOMIZING VEHICLE RESPONSE
US 20220128373 A1
LEE; Seungshin
VEHICLE AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
US 20190105990 A1
Cho; Woo Cheol
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING VEHICLE HAVING MOTOR
US 20150170253 A1
KIM; Seon Su et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF RECOMMENDING TYPE OF VEHICLE BASED ON CUSTOMER USE INFORMATION AND VEHICLE STATE
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683 7/31/2025