DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant is advised that the Notice of Allowance mailed 01/28/2026 is vacated. If the issue fee has already been paid, applicant may request a refund or request that the fee be credited to a deposit account. However, applicant may wait until the application is either found allowable or held abandoned. If allowed, upon receipt of a new Notice of Allowance, applicant may request that the previously submitted issue fee be applied. If abandoned, applicant may request refund or credit to a specified Deposit Account.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2 and 8-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1, 2 and 8-16, 19 and 20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a system. Claim 16 recites a method.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 16, taken as representative, recites the abstract idea of determining an optimal vehicle for a user based on the user tendency. This idea is described by the following steps:
communicating a user tendency test including a user question about a user for recommending a vehicle suitable for the user and questions for determining a user tendency to a user;
receiving a response to the user tendency test from the user;
determining the user tendency based on the received response;
calculating a plurality of weight values for a plurality of vehicle tendency elements based on data for each vehicle and evaluation data for each of a plurality of vehicles;
determining, as a first matching step for filtering a vehicle data, an optimal vehicle type suitable for a user tendency among the plurality of vehicles based on the user tendency and a vehicle tendency of each of the plurality of vehicles;
generating a plurality of option groups by grouping predetermined option specifications, for each of a plurality of vehicle types, among a plurality of specifications of the vehicle type; and
determining, as a second matching step performed subsequent to the first matching step, an optimal vehicle by matching an option group corresponding to the user tendency exclusively from the plurality of option groups associated with the determined optimal vehicle type based on the user tendency, wherein determining the optimal vehicle comprises:
calculating a standard deviation between a weight value for each of a plurality of user tendency elements of the user tendency and a corresponding reference weight value of each of the plurality of option groups;
determining a value obtained by multiplying a maximum difference between a plurality of standard deviations by a predetermined first ratio as a predetermined deviation reference value; and
when among a plurality of standard deviations for the plurality of option groups, a difference between a first standard deviation having a smallest standard deviation and a second standard deviation having a second smallest second standard deviation is equal to or less than a predetermined deviation reference value, selecting two option groups having the first standard deviation and the second standard deviation as option groups suitable for the user tendency, and wherein the plurality of user tendency elements are personal tendencies considered when purchasing a vehicle, and the plurality of vehicle tendency elements correspond to the plurality of user tendency elements;
determining option specifications to be included in each of the plurality of option groups of each vehicle type;
determining, for each of a plurality of trims of each vehicle type, additional option specifications of the trim by deriving missing option specifications from the option specifications of each option group;
determining a total price by adding a price of additional optional specifications to a base vehicle price of each trim; and
determining the trim and additional options corresponding to each of the plurality of option groups based on the total price.
Claim 1 recites equivalent limitations.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite vehicle recommendation, i.e., commercial interactions.
Additionally, the limitations of “calculating a plurality of weight values for a plurality of vehicle tendency elements…”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), in that they recite mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations.
Additionally, the above recited limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ides, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind. The BRI of these limitations includes a human mentally, or by use of pen and paper, collecting information, comparing information, analyzing information, and performing calculations to determine an optimal vehicle.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1 and 16 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 1 and 16 recite a user tendency determinator, a user terminal, a vehicle tendency determination device and a vehicle database. Claim 1 further recites the additional elements of a microprocessor, an optimum tendency matcher, an option group classifier, an option group matcher, and a non-transitory computer readable recording medium configured to store software including a program, operated by the microprocessor, for performing the claimed operations. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. These additional computer-related elements merely invoke such additional elements as tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1 and 16 further recite the additional elements of transmitting, by a user tendency determinator, a user tendency test including a user question about a user for recommending a vehicle suitable for the user and questions for determining a user tendency to a user terminal; and receiving, by the user tendency determinator, a response to the user tendency test from the user terminal which merely add insignificant extra-solution activities, i.e., data gathering, to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 16 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1 and 16 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claims 1 and 16 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1 and 16 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
With respect to the limitations determined to be insignificant extra solution activity, these elements are similar to at least the following concepts determined by the courts to be insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
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). For example, at least paragraph 31 describes a network system that facilitates a request for services received from a user including a selection of a merchant.
Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. For example, at least paragraph 107describes presenting an offer for an add-on order to be added to a primary order.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 8-16 and 19 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688