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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 12/30/2025.
Claims 2, 6, and 21 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 20 are amended.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-20, and 22-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-20, and 22-25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 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, 3-5, 7-20, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility (SME) analysis described in MPEP 2106.03, the instant claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention identified by 35 U.S.C. 101. In the instant case, claims 1-19 are directed to a system and claims 20-25 are directed to a method. Claims 1 and 20 are parallel in nature, therefore, the analysis will use claim 20 as the representative claim.
In Step 2A Prong One, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception. In the instant case, representative claim 20 recites abstract concepts including: receiving a response to a user tendency test from a user ... determining a user tendency based on a response to a user tendency test; determining a plurality of vehicle tendencies for each of a plurality of vehicles; generating a tendency matching index indicating a degree of matching between the user tendency and the vehicle tendency for each of the plurality of vehicles; transmitting information on the tendency matching index to the user ...; and receiving an optimal vehicle type selected by the user..., wherein generating the tendency matching index includes calculating a plurality of first weight values for a plurality of user tendency elements of the user tendency based on the response to the user tendency test, calculating a plurality of second weight values for a plurality of vehicle tendency elements of each of the plurality of vehicles, and generating the tendency matching index for each of the vehicles based on the plurality of first weight values for the plurality of user tendency elements and the plurality of second weight values for the plurality of vehicle tendency elements for each of the plurality of vehicles, and wherein the vehicle tendency includes the plurality of vehicle tendency elements corresponding to the plurality of user tendency elements; wherein the plurality of user tendency elements and the plurality of vehicle tendency elements comprise at least two elements selected from among economics, safety, self- consciousness, technicality, reliability, functionality, and aesthetics, wherein the vehicle tendency determination device is configured to calculate the plurality of second weight values for the plurality of vehicle tendency elements based on vehicle data for each of the plurality of vehicles and vehicle evaluation data for each of the plurality of vehicles, wherein the vehicle data includes at least one of vehicle specifications, price, color, performance, or maintenance cost, and the vehicle evaluation data includes at least one of evaluation data for each vehicle provided by a vehicle evaluation institution and evaluation data collected from users.
When considering the subject matter groupings articulated in MPEP 2106.04, the claims recite an abstract idea of “generating a matching index indicating a degree of matching between a user and vehicles”. These concepts are considered to be certain methods of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”. In this case, “generating matching index indicating a degree of matching between a user and vehicles” are certain methods of organizing human activity because these are sales activities and behaviors. Therefore, claims 1 and 20 recite an abstract idea.
If it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, then in Step 2A, Prong 2 of the SME analysis, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. This is the question of whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.05, the evaluation of Prong Two requires the use of the considerations (e.g. improving technology, effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis, implementing with a particular machine, etc.) identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, to ensure that the claim as a whole “integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.”
In this instant case, claims 1 and 20 recite the additional elements including: a vehicle tendency determination device; a user terminal; transmitting information ... to the user terminal; and receiving an optimal vehicle type selected by the user transmitted through an application of the user. Neither the device, terminal, or application are described in any relevant technical detail by the claims or specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation is that the device and terminal are computers connected to a network which operate to perform the abstract method. The 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/components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than “apply it” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea of “generating matching index indicating a degree of matching between a user and vehicles” into a practical application. Claims 1 and 20 are thus directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the SME analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a general computer components. The invention as claimed merely automates “generating matching index indicating a degree of matching between a user and vehicles” (i.e., the abstract idea) and does not add meaningful limitations to the abstract ideas beyond generally linking the abstract process to implementation via computers/software. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in ordered combination, do not render the claim as being significantly more than the underlying abstract idea, and the claims 1 and 20 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 3-19 and 22-25 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims. These claims merely further define the abstract idea without reciting any further additional elements. Thus dependent claims 3-19 and 22-25 are also ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Prong Two of Step 2A
On page 12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “the claims, as amended, are specifically directed to a system and method that generate a tendency matching index based on user interactions and vehicle tendencies in a manner that involves specific computational processes that transform user data into actionable vehicle recommendations, thereby providing a technological improvement to personalized vehicle recommendation and selection technology”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements, or by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(a).
The instant claims recite an abstract sales activity of “generating matching index indicating a degree of matching between a user and vehicles” implemented on generic computers used as mere tools. The Specification in ¶ [0047] describes a “user tendency” and “vehicle tendency” as “personal tendencies that may be considered when purchasing a vehicle among various personal tendencies” and “qualitative characteristics of the vehicle corresponding to the user tendency”. This is abstract sales information, not a data structure. Calculating weights for a plurality of vehicle and user tendencies and generating a tendency matching index based on the calculated weights are abstract mathematical calculations. Using a computer to transmit the resulting matching index to a user device and receive a selected optimal vehicle type through an application of the user terminal, where neither the communications or devices are described in any technical specificity, merely invokes computers as a tool. See MPEP 2106.05(f), “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”. Furthermore, defining the type of data included in the user tendencies, vehicle tendencies, vehicle data, or vehicle evaluation does not alter its fundamental character as abstract information. Such specificity relates only to the content of the information, rather than to any concreate technical implementation. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that the claims are directed to an abstract idea in prong two because the additional elements fail to provide integration into a practical application.
B. On page 14 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “the above additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself”, because “the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 20 pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the vehicle technology”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to improving a personalized vehicle recommendation –an abstract sales activity, and have nothing to do with “the functioning of vehicle technology”. As explained above, the additional elements are invoked merely as generic tools to implement the abstract idea. For this same reason, the claims fail to add significantly more in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f) “implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not ... add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer”).
The Examiner is therefore maintaining the 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 22-25.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pgs. 14-16, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102/103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
J. Z. Wu, H.W. Liu and F.L. Wu (NPL Reference U) aims to analyze pairwise vehicle comparison data using association rules to help establish a recommendation system.
Funkhouser et al. (US 2018/0025391 A1) describes a process for vehicle valuation using, in part, third-party information such as registration and collision records.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNEDY A GIBSON-WYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 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 Smith can be reached on 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.
/K.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688