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 .
1. Applicant’s amendment filed 03/02/2026. Claims 1-2, 13, and 19 are currently amended. Claim 8 is previously canceled. Claims 1-7, 9-23 are pending for examination. Claims 1, 13, and 19 are independent claims. Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 23 depend from claim 1, claims 14-18 depend from claim 13, and claims 20-22 depend from claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 1-7, 9-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-7, 9-18 and 23 are to a process comprising a series of steps, and clams 19-22 to manufacture, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A method for purchasing a vehicle, comprising:
(i) receiving an indication that a vehicle is damaged beyond repair;
(ii) receiving data related to the damaged vehicle from a server, the data being accessed from a database and including data selected from the group consisting of a vehicle type, make, model, year, mileage, and the extent of the damage;
(iii) determining, with a computing price, a price for an option to purchase the damaged vehicle, wherein the price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle is unique to the particular damaged vehicle and is determined based on the received data, wherein the option to purchase the vehicle is an exclusive right to purchase the vehicle;
(iv) causing the price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle to be presented to a user via a graphical user interface, , along with at least some of the received data;
(v) receiving a selection from the user to buy the option to purchase the damaged vehicle and performing a transaction in response to the selection, wherein the user pays a fee in order to buy the option to purchase the damaged vehicle and a second fee upon exercising the option to purchase the vehicle. ; and
(vi) in response to receiving the selection from the user to buy the option, modifying availability data associated with the damaged vehicle in the database to indicate that the damaged vehicle is subject to the option to prevent the damaged vehicle from being purchased by other users during an option period associated with the option.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim
The highlighted limitations comprising, “ receiving an indication that a vehicle is damaged beyond repair; receiving data related to the damaged vehicle, the data including data selected from the group consisting of a vehicle type, make, model, year, mileage, and the extent of the damage; determining a price for an option to purchase the damaged vehicle, wherein the price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle is unique to the particular damaged vehicle and is determined based on the received data, wherein the option to purchase the vehicle is an exclusive right to purchase the vehicle ;causing the price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle to be presented to a user, along with at least some of the received data; and receiving a selection from the user to buy the option to purchase the damaged vehicle and performing a transaction in response to the selection, wherein the user pays a fee in order to buy the option to purchase the damaged vehicle and a second fee upon exercising the option to purchase the vehicle..”, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, is a commercial activity which falls under ”Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings because they relates to selling and purchasing a damaged vehicle. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.
The limitations, “ determining a price for an option to purchase the damaged vehicle, wherein the price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle is unique to the particular damaged vehicle and is determined based on the received data; wherein the option to purchase the vehicle is an exclusive right to purchase the vehicle, and in response to receiving the selection from the user to buy the option, modifying availability data associated with the damaged vehicle in the database to indicate that the damaged vehicle is subject to the option to prevent the damaged vehicle from being purchased by other users during an option period associated with the option.;.”, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observing , evaluating data/information for determining a purchase price of the damaged/totaled vehicle and making a ion, judgment to select an option and based upon the selection of the option to purchase deny the rights to purchase to others. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. ”. That is, other than reciting “by a computer device” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of by a computer does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Since the claim 1 recites limitations falling under two separate groupings of abstract ideas, the Supreme Court (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)) has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Accordingly, limitations considered under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Since the limitations of the other two independent claims 13 and 19 are similar, they are analyzed on the same basis as reciting an abstract idea with their dependent claims 14-18 and 20-22. However, these two claims also recite limitations, “ restricting presentation of a purchase interface for the damaged vehicle to the user, in response to receiving the selection from the user to buy the option to purchase the damaged vehicle.”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “restricting encompasses mental observations or evaluations that are practically performed in the human mind. For example, the claimed restricting purchasing after receiving a purchase offer for the same item is a simple manual/mental decision and does not tie it inextricably to a computer processing and falls within a “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III
Thus, claims 1-7, 9-23 recite abstract idea [(Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-7, 9-23: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In the independent claims 1 and 13, which are process claims, the limitations comprising, “(i) receiving an indication that a vehicle is damaged beyond repair; (ii) receiving data related to the damaged vehicle from a server, the data being accessed from a database and including data selected from the group consisting of a vehicle type, make, model, year, mileage, and the extent of the damage; (iv) causing the price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle to be presented to a user via a graphical user interface, , along with at least some of the received data; (v) receiving a selection from the user to buy the option to purchase the damaged vehicle and performing a transaction in response to the selection, wherein the user pays a fee in order to buy the option to purchase the damaged vehicle and a second fee upon exercising the option to purchase the vehicle.”, as drafted, do not recite any engagement of a device, which can be interpreted that steps of receiving data and displaying data with respect to the damaged vehicle for providing the damaged vehicle for a purchase option can be done manually. Therefore, these steps (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) can be construed reciting no additional elements .
The independent claim 19 does recite using a computer to perform these steps. However, these steps are mere data gathering and output/displaying/presenting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output/display, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Further, the computer is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of receiving and presenting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In claims 1, 13, and 19 the limitations in steps (iii) determining, with a computing price, a price for an option to purchase the damaged vehicle, wherein the price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle is unique to the particular damaged vehicle and is determined based on the received data, wherein the option to purchase the vehicle is an exclusive right to purchase the vehicle; and (vi) in response to receiving the selection from the user to buy the option, modifying availability data associated with the damaged vehicle in the database to indicate that the damaged vehicle is subject to the option to prevent the damaged vehicle from being purchased by other users during an option period associated with the option., and “restricting presentation of a purchase interface for the damaged vehicle to the user, in response to receiving the selection from the user to buy the option to purchase the damaged vehicle [only in claims 13 and 19].”, recite using a computer to perform these steps. The computer is recited at a high level of generality to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in claims 1, 13, and 19 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 13, and 19 are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
The dependent claims 2-5, 9-10 merely expand the limitations of presenting price, receiving selection to buy, user agreeing to store the vehicle util a salvage title becomes available, determining price for scrap metal and adjusting the price based on weight of damaged vehicle and restricting presenting purchase option after getting a purchase selection amount to data gathering and outputting/presenting and mental processes. The dependent claims 6-7, 11-12 and 23 merely recite non-function descriptive subject matter describing the price and the option to purchase the vehicle. Accordingly, the additional limitations in the dependent claims 2-7, 9-12, and 23 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The dependent claims 2-7, 9-12 and 23 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 20-22 recite limitations “to assess a penalty on the buyer, prior to their selection to purchase the option; wherein the penalty includes an increased price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle, and cause the damaged vehicle to be shipped to the buyer for their possession, until a salvage title is procured for the damaged vehicle”, relate to actions under mental processes which can be performed by a human being. The computer is used to perform an abstract idea, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in pending claims 1-7, 9-23, as per Step 2A Prong 2 analysis do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus do integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Thus claims 1-7, 9-23,are directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1-7, 9-23, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claims recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, In the claims 1-7, 9-23 the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
As per MPEP 2106 , a conclusion that an additional element or elements is/are extra-solution activity, in step 2A should be re-evaluated in step 2B that they are well-understood, conventional and routine activity. Here the receiving, acquiring, transmitting/outputting /presenting/displaying steps were considered extra-solution activity in step 2A and thus are re-evaluated in step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere receiving, acquiring, transmitting/presenting/displaying steps using a generic computer is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Further the steps of making payment and shipping vehicle , as recited do not necessitate inextricable tie to computer technology because these steps can be carried out manually and is just performing the disembodied concept on a general-purpose computer.
Even when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-7, 9-23 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus claims 1-7, 9-23 are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
3.1. Claims 1-7, 11-12, 13, 16-18, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Longman et al. [US 20050091144 A1], hereinafter Longman in view of Kasai Yoshitomo [JP 2005055943A], hereinafter Kasai and in view of Deasy et al. [US 20090248563 A1], hereinafter Deasy.
Regarding claim 1, Bauer teaches a method for purchasing a vehicle, comprising:
receiving an indication that a vehicle is damaged beyond repair; receiving data related to the damaged vehicle from a server, the data being accessed from a database and including data selected from the group consisting of a vehicle type, make, model, year, mileage, and the extent of the damage [See paras 0117-0118 “ FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary process for determining salvage value for a vehicle. ….[0118] In step 510, vehicle data (e.g., vehicle data 185) is received. Step 510 may be performed in any of the ways described above, including an agent of an insurance company using an access device (e.g., access device 104-1) to provide vehicle data to valuation subsystem 110 over a data communication network (e.g., data communication network 120) which teach receiving vehicle data for determining a salvage value for a vehicle and the salvage value relates to a damaged beyond repair vehicle or “totaled” vehicle, see para 0003, “ When a vehicle is involved in an accident or otherwise damaged, and a claim is submitted to an insurance company, the insurance company decides whether to repair or "total" the vehicle. Typically, the insurance company will deem the vehicle "totaled" when the cost to repair the vehicle is greater than either the value of the vehicle prior to the accident or the value of the vehicle prior to the accident less the salvage value of the vehicle.” Paras 0038, 0047, and 0076 describe in detail the data received of the damaged vehicle includes data selected from the group consisting of a vehicle type, make, model, year, mileage, and the extent of the damage and the data is received from an external source : Para 0038 ” Valuation subsystem 110 may receive a variety of information from access devices 104. For example, valuation subsystem 110 may receive data representative of user registration and/or logon information, information associated with or descriptive of one or more vehicles, e.g., photographs of the damaged vehicle, “], . Para 0047 [ “ valuation subsystem 110 may be configured to store and/or retrieve data to/from external data sources. Any data potentially helpful for valuating vehicles, managing user access, and/or communicating with users may be retrieved from any suitable and accessible internal or external data source” ] and para 0076 [“ In FIG. 4, the written description 420 includes the vehicle make, model, year color, vehicle identification number ("VIN"), and mileage, as well as a pre-damage value of the vehicle (denoted as "ACV" for actual cash value), repair cost, title information (e.g., certificate of destruction or salvage certificate), loss type (e.g., collision), and damage description (e.g., all over, front end, rear end, etc.” ]. Bauer fails to disclose that the external source includes a server accessing the data from a database. Since the valuation system 110 in Bauer, see Fig.1, and paragraph 0024, includes a computer system implementing the steps, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the vehicle data received from an external source via a communication network would be from a computing system which could be a server computer providing stored damaged vehicle data.
Bauer teaches determining, with a computing device, a price for an option to purchase the damaged vehicle, wherein the price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle is unique to the particular damaged vehicle and is determined based on the received data [See paras 0119, 0120, 0121 which describe providing damaged vehicle information to a number of users to submit their bids and a salvage value based on the received high bid [corresponds to the claimed language--- price for an option to purchase the damaged vehicle, wherein the price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle is unique to the particular damaged vehicle and is determined based on the received data] . Bauman fails to disclose that the option to purchase the vehicle is an exclusive right to purchase the vehicle. These limitations , as drafted, do not relate any computer function but merely states a rule or condition which can be set by the auction administrator. The same term can be applied by the auction organizer in Bauer. Longman, in the same field of endeavor of conducting an auction, teaches such concept while conducting an auction, see Longman paras 0100—0101, “ 0100] In the case when two or more bidders enter the same highest offer for the same item in a Buyer's Offer auction, the one who first places the highest offer will be declared the winner by the system controller ………. For example, as scenario described earlier: 7 $255 User 5 18:11 09-03-2003 $255 User 2 13:01 09-03-2003 $255 User 3 12:55 09-05-2003 $146 User 6 9:15 09-01-2003 $132 User 1 8:22 09-04-2003 $88 User 4 10:45 09-01-2003 [0101] Since User 5, User 2, and User 3 Entered the same highest offer of $255, the winner at the auction end date would be determined by the offers' entry time. Since User 2 was the first one who made the offer at $255 (see time of entry in bold print), User 2 would be declared the winner of this Buyer's Offer auction by the system controller.”. Longman teaches that the first buyer who submits the first bid becomes the winner and is to have an exclusive right to purchase in spite the other bidders bidding the same price but they submitted their bids later. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Longman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Application to have modified the Bauer method to incorporate the concept that the user who acts first the option to purchase the vehicle is given an exclusive right to purchase the vehicle, as shown in Longman, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Bauer teaches causing the price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle to be presented to a user via a graphical user interface, along with at least some of the received data; and receiving a selection from the user to buy the option to purchase the damaged vehicle and performing a transaction in response to the selection, wherein the user pays a fee in order to buy the option to purchase the damaged vehicle. [see paras 0126 which describes that once the policyholder has decided not to retain the vehicle the highest bidder is notified that he can purchase the vehicle at the high bid offered by him and once the transaction is completed the high bidder can take possession of the damaged vehicle and para 0030 describes data is displayed via GUI “ The user interfaces may comprise one or more graphical user interfaces ("GUI") capable of displaying information and receiving input from users”, and para 0079 describes paying different fees at different locations, “.a bidder located in Florida who is bidding on a vehicle also located in Florida will be able to ascertain an apparent advantage over a bidder located in California who may have to pay higher fees to have the vehicle transported to California.” ].
Bauer fails to disclose that the user pays a fee in order to buy the option to purchase the damaged vehicle. Kasai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches [see paragraph 0002 that a user is required to pay a fee in order to participate for an auction option to purchase a vehicle “ Vehicles purchased or traded in at a vehicle purchase store are generally bought and sold at an auction site. There are about 160 auction venues nationwide, and a person who wants to buy or sell a vehicle at an auction can participate in the auction by paying the admission fee and membership fee to the auction venue.”. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Kasai it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bauer method of allowing buyers to provide an option to purchase the damaged vehicle by charging a fee such as an auction option for receiving bids , as shown in Kasai, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of combination were predictable. Combined teachings of Bauer in view of Longman and in view of Kasai as applied to claim 1 fail to teach wherein the user pays a second fee upon exercising the option to purchase the vehicle. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor' s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the teachings of Deasy reference are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem the inventor was faced that is a user paying fee to be able to buy the option to purchase the option to purchase the vehicle and then after the vehicle is purchased the user pays an additional fee over and above the initial fee paid [see Deasy paras 1110—0011, “.[0011] Sales agents (or sellers) in one embodiment are charged a transaction fee by the auction organizer based on the value of the house to be sold--equal in one embodiment to approximately 0.5% of the listing price. This will draw buyers directly to the listing (seller's) agent who thereby stands to receive an additional agent's fee through a dual (buyer-seller) representation. In addition, once the auctioned property has sold, all registered potential buyers become sales leads for the listing (seller's) agent. Additionally, a buyer-premium fee (commission) of, e.g., 1.95% may be charged by the auction organizer to the successful bidder at close of escrow (the actual completion of the sale).”. Here, ,Deasy teaches besides being charged an initial fee or 0.5” for listing item [real estate and then second fee of 1.95% is charged when the real estate is sold, which is a similar concept to the claimed invention, except the items being sold are different. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Deasy it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective date of filing of the Application to have modified the teachings of Bauer in view of Longman in view of Kasai as applied to claim1 to incorporate the concept of paying a second fee upon exercising the option to purchase the vehicle, similar to Deasy in the analogous situation of paying extra fee of 1.95 % after the real estate is sold in addition to paying an initial fee of 0.5% for participating with an option to participate and purchase the real estate, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Bauer further teaches that in response to receiving the selection from the user to buy the option, modifying availability data associated with the damaged vehicle in the database to indicate that the damaged vehicle is subject to the option to prevent the damaged vehicle from being purchased by other users during an option period associated with the option [See paras 0008—0009 “[0008]…..When a customer buys an item either on a merchant's website or through a mall, the system does not allow the sale to be completed. The system places the item on hold. In an embodiment, a hold is placed on the item automatically for 48 hours. When a customer views an item online that has been placed on hold, a large "on hold" sign is displayed. The sign communicates to the customer that they still may be able to purchase the item and it tells them the time and the date that the hold expires. [0009] Referring to FIGS. 16-50, the system includes a point of sale system (POS). If an item is placed on hold, the item cannot be sold through the point of sale system, and no one else can purchase it through any other avenue, such as at the merchant's own website or the UTOPA.com mall……….”. These excerpts teach that on receiving a purchase confirmation from a buyer, the item [which in the applicant’s case is a damaged vehicle for purchase] the availability is modified so to prevent another buyer to purchase till the hold period exists and therefore reads on the claimed limitations..
Regarding claim 2, Bauer teaches that the method of claim 1 further comprising presenting the price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle to the user via a graphical user interface [See Bauer para 0030, “The user interfaces may comprise one or more graphical user interfaces ("GUI") capable of displaying information and receiving input from users.]; and during the option period , restricting presentation of a purchase interface for the damaged vehicle to the user [already covered in the analysis of claim 1, see Bauer paras 0008—0009].
Regarding claim 3, the limitations, “ The method of claim 2, wherein the method further includes presenting the price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle to a plurality of users” are already covered in the analysis of claim 1 wherein the damaged vehicle data is provided to a plurality of bidders and since the damaged vehicle can be purchased by one of them it is purchased by the high bidder [see Bauer paras 0119-0120, 0122 and 0126] .
Regarding claim 4, the limitations, “ The method of claim 1, wherein upon receiving the selection from the user to buy the option to purchase the damaged vehicle, the user agrees to take possession of the vehicle.} are already covered in the analysis for claim 1, see Bauer para 0126
Regarding claim 5, Bauer teaches that the method of claim 4, wherein the user agrees to store the vehicle until a salvage title becomes available for the vehicle [See Bauer para 0111, “ Transaction module 182 may be configured to perform functions helpful for processing vehicles titles. The processing of vehicle titles to complete a sale of vehicles will be understood by those skilled in the art. In certain embodiments, if title is not transferred within a predetermined time interval after approval of a sale, the highest bidder is given an opportunity to either continue with the transaction or cancel the sale.”. Till the title becomes available the vehicle can be stored in vehicle yard [see para 0076, “ As shown in FIG. 4, virtual bid interface 400 may include information associated with a particular vehicle currently up for bid. For example, virtual bid interface 400 as shown in FIG. 4 includes visual images 410 of the vehicle, a location identifier associated with a vehicle yard 415 (e.g., a yard at which a buyer can pick up the vehicle).
Regarding claim 6, “The method of claim 1, wherein the price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle is a fixed price” are covered in the analysis of claim 1 wherein first a salvage value is determined based on an auction based on the high value from the auction. This determined high value becomes the fixed salvage value and after the policy holder refuses to retain the vehicle it is offered for purchase of the vehicle at the fixed salvage value determined from the auction..
Regarding claim 7, the limitations, “The method of claim 1, wherein the price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle is bid on by one or more of a plurality of users” are already covered in the analysis of claim 1, wherein a plurality of users are allowed to bid..
Regarding claim 11, the limitations, “ The method of claim 1, wherein the price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle is based on a residual value of the damaged vehicle” are already covered in the analysis of claim 1 wherein the option to purchase is based on the salvage value which is same as residual value of the damaged vehicle
Regarding claim 12, the limitations, “ The method of claim 1, wherein the price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle is based on an auction price for the damaged vehicle”, are already covered in the analysis of claim 1 wherein the salvage value of the damaged vehicle is determined based on an auction price.
Regarding claim 13, its limitations are similar to the limitations of claims 1-2,v c except that the language of claim 13 refers to a plurality of vehicles. Since the same steps are required for receiving data, determining price, presenting the price and receiving a selection for each of the damaged vehicle , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat the steps discussed and described in Bauer for claim 1 for each of the plurality of vehicles with the same computer system as disclosed in Bauer in Fig.1 and the same steps as discussed for each of the damaged vehicle. As such the teachings of Bauer in view of Longman in view of Kasai in view of Deasy discussed for claim 1 teaches and renders obvious the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 16, Bauer teaches that the method of claim 13, wherein the data related to each of the plurality of vehicles includes at least one different data value, with respect to the rest of the plurality of vehicles [ See para 0040, which describes that there can be different data for different vehicles including the damage can be different and such difference can be realized from the received data for the vehicles . [“ 0040] Input module 130 may be configured to provide and/or receive data to/from users who are approved to upload data representative of vehicle information. As mentioned previously, such users may include agents of insurance companies (e.g., insurance adjusters) and other pre-approved users. Insurance adjusters typically use some of the access devices 104 to provide vehicle data 185 to input module 130 through data communication network 120. Vehicle data 185 may include, but is not limited to, text, audio, visual, and/or video descriptions or representations of vehicles, including descriptions of the conditions of vehicles, visual images of vehicles, vehicle maintenance records, vehicle histories, third-party valuations (e.g., Kelly Blue Book.RTM. values), vehicle mileage, vehicle color, vehicle features (e.g., leather seats, stereo make and model, engine specifications, navigation system, etc.), title information, estimated values of vehicles (e.g., pre-damage values of vehicles as determined by insurance adjusters), damage descriptions, vehicle locations, and any other information potentially useful for describing and/or valuating a vehicle..
Regarding claim 17, Bauer teaches that the method of claim 16, further comprising analyzing the at least one different data value for each of the plurality of vehicles to determine the unique price for the option to purchase each of the damaged vehicles [See para 0040 cited above which describes considering different data values to determine the unique price for purchase of the damaged vehicle and the different data values could be related to the vehicle mileage, Kelly blue Book RTM values, vehicle features, damage descriptions etc.].
Regarding claim 18, Bauer teaches that the method of claim 17, wherein the price for the option to purchase each of the damaged vehicles is different for each of the plurality of damaged vehicles [See para 0040 cited above which teaches considering different data of each of the damaged vehicle for valuating a vehicle and different data such as will result different price for the option to purchase each of the damaged vehicles is different for each of the plurality of damaged vehicles
Regarding claim 19, the limitations, “ A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions to purchase a vehicle, executable by a processing resource to: receive data, from a server, related to a damaged vehicle, wherein the cost of damage to the vehicle exceeds a residual value of the vehicle; determine , with a computing device, a price for an option to purchase the damaged vehicle, wherein the price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle is unique to the particular damaged vehicle and is determined based on the received data, wherein the option to purchase the vehicle is an exclusive right to purchase the vehicle ; present the option to purchase the damaged vehicle to a user via a graphical user interface; determine an eligibility of the buyer to purchase the option; and receive a selection from the buyer to purchase the option, based on their determined eligibility to purchase the option, wherein the user pays a fee in order to buy the option to purchase the damaged vehicle and a second fee upon exercising the option to purchase the vehicle; in response to receiving the selection from the user to buy the option, update a vehicle status field stored in the database to indicate that the damaged vehicle is subject to the option and to block purchase requests for the damaged vehicle from other users until the option is exercised or expires; and restricting presentation of a purchase interface for the damaged vehicle to the user, in response to receiving the selection from the user to buy the option to purchase the damaged vehicle.”, are covered in the analysis of claims 1-2 above as unpatentable in view of Bauer in view of Longman, in view of Kasai in view of Deasy except for the limitations in italics. Bauer, see Fig.1. describes the system and the valuation system includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions to purchase a vehicle, executable by a processor including the recited steps, and paragraph 0003 [“ When a vehicle is involved in an accident or otherwise damaged, and a claim is submitted to an insurance company, the insurance company decides whether to repair or "total" the vehicle. Typically, the insurance company will deem the vehicle "totaled" when the cost to repair the vehicle is greater than either the value of the vehicle prior to the accident or the value of the vehicle prior to the accident less the salvage value of the vehicle] teaches wherein the cost of damage to the vehicle exceeds a residual value of the vehicle; . The salvage value corresponds to the residual value of the damaged vehicle. Bauer also teaches determine an eligibility of the buyer to purchase the option and receives a selection from the buyer to purchase the option, based on their determined eligibility to purchase the option.” [See para 0052, “Bid module 150 may be configured to limit access to qualified bidders. For example, bid module 150 may request valid registration information from users before the users will be granted access. Accordingly, bid module 150 may maintain any registration information useful for controlling access to bid solicitations. Bid module 150 may be configured to receive registration information (e.g., username, business name, contact information, payment information, password, etc.) associated with new users seeking registration. Once registration is completed, bid module 150 may provide the registered users with access to one or more bid processes supported by bid module 150. A separate bid process may be conducted by bid module 150 for each vehicle being valued or for a batch of one or more vehicles being valued.. This excerpt teaches that the system determines the eligibility of the bidders who are given the option to bid and the option to purchase the damaged vehicle based on the submitted bids. Accordingly, Bauer in view of Longman in view of Kasai in view of Deasy teaches and renders obvious all the limitations of claim 19.
Regarding claim 23, the limitations that the method of claim 1, wherein the option is an option to purchase the vehicle for a price that is known at the time of purchasing the option is covered in the analysis of claim 1 wherein Kasai teaches [[see paragraph 0002 that a user is required to pay a fee in order to participate for an auction option to purchase a vehicle “ Vehicles purchased or traded in at a vehicle purchase store are generally bought and sold at an auction site. There are about 160 auction venues nationwide, and a person who wants to buy or sell a vehicle at an auction can participate in the auction by paying the admission fee and membership fee to the auction venue.”.] that it in order to participate in the auction option it was required to pay admission and membership fee]
3.2. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Longman in view of Kasai in view of Deasy in view of in view of Leise et al. [US 20210272208 A1 hereinafter Leise.
Regarding claim 9, over Bauer in view of Longman in view of Kasai in view of Deasy teaches and renders all the limitations of claim 1, as analyzed above, wherein the user is presented an option to purchase the damaged vehicle but fails to disclose comprising: determining a price of scrap metal associated with the damaged vehicle; and adjusting the price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle based on the price of scrap metal exceeding a threshold price and a determined value of the damaged vehicle being less than a defined value. Leise, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining the scrap metal associated with the damaged vehicle and a decision is made based on amount of scrap metal in the vehicle versus the damage to the vehicle. If the damage is extensive resulting in scrapping the vehicle then its salvage value will be adjusted based on value of the scrap metal [See para 0088 , “If the damage to the vehicle is too extensive or costly to be repaired, the damaged vehicle may be salvaged. In some instances where the damaged vehicle is determined to be a total loss, the vehicle may be immediately sold or put up for auction or scrapped and shredded for its scrap metal (block 712). Scrapping the vehicle may be appropriated for low dollar, high curb weight vehicles where the value of the damaged vehicle is perceived to be in the scrap metal. In other instances, the damaged vehicle may be dismantled to salvage any value associated with the damaged vehicle. For example, if the damaged vehicle includes undamaged vehicle parts, the vehicle may be dismantled and the undamaged vehicle parts may be harvested and stored in a storage facility 116 for later use and/or sale.”]. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Leise it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified over Bauer in view of Longman in view of Kasai in view of Deasy i as applied to claim 1 to incorporate the concept of determining the price for the purchase of the damage vehicle based upon the amount of scrap metal and accordingly adjust it based upon the price associated with the scrap metal, because as shown in Leise if the damage is too extensive that is “total loss is greater than a predetermined threshold based upon the received pre-crash information}, see para 0006 , then the vehicle may be scrapped for its scrap metal value, and secondly. since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations, “ The method of claim 1, wherein the price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle is adjusted based on a weight of the damaged vehicle” are covered in the analysis of claim 9 wherein the weight of the vehicle plays a part in evaluating scrap metal associated with the damaged vehicle [see Leise para 0088 cited above] and accordingly the price for purchase has to be adjusted based upon the scrap metal weight of the vehicle.
3.3 Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Longman in view of Kasai in view of Deasy in view of Mohan et al. [US 20230065751 A1], hereinafter Mohan.
Regarding claims 14-15, Bauer in view of Longman in view of Kasai in view of Deasy teaches and renders obvious all the limitations of claim 13, as discussed and analyzed above but fails to teach determining a number of times that the user has refused to exercise the option to purchase the damaged vehicle and preventing the user from buying future purchase options for a period of time. Mohan, in a similar field of endeavor of offering items for purchase to a buyer the system determines the number of times a user has declined to buy the offered item again and again then he is prevented access for future items [See para 0022, “ the buyer is categorized using the past buying behavior of the buyer. …… In addition, as will be discussed further below, the behavior can include the buyer purchasing many items in the past using the submit an offer option. Moreover, the behavior can include the buyer using the submit an offer option in the past but the offers have been consistently declined, e.g., the buyer consistently makes offers that are too low to be considered by sellers. These behaviors could be used to categorize the buyer. Based on the categorization, when the buyer submits the offer for the first item, the buyer is presented with the option to accept offers from other sellers for second items that have the characteristic when the acceptance window closes.”. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Mohan it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Application to have modified Bauer in view of Longman in view of Kasai in view of Deasy as applied to claim 13 to incorporate the concept of determining a number of times that the user has refused to exercise the option to purchase the damaged vehicle and preventing the user from buying future purchase options for a period of time when a specific bidder bids always very low price , because, as shown in Mohan that specific bidder can be categorized as a consistent lower bidder who will never exercise the opportunity to purchase vehicle and thus he is prevented for future accessing the auction for the damaged vehicles, and secondly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of combination were predictable.
3.4. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Longman in view of Kasai in view of Deasy in view of Mohan et al. [US 20230065751 A1], hereinafter Mohan.
Regarding claim 20, Bauer in view of Longman in view of Kasai in view of Deasy teaches and renders obvious all the limitations of claim 19, as analyzed above but fails to teach further comprising instructions executable to assess a penalty on the buyer, prior to their selection to purchase the option. Mohan, in a similar field of endeavor of offering items for purchase to a buyer the system determines the number of times a user has declined to buy the offered item again and again wherein the system assesses a penalty by preventing him access for future items [See para 0022, “ the buyer is categorized using the past buying behavior of the buyer. …… In addition, as will be discussed further below, the behavior can include the buyer purchasing many items in the past using the submit an offer option. Moreover, the behavior can include the buyer using the submit an offer option in the past but the offers have been consistently declined, e.g., the buyer consistently makes offers that are too low to be considered by sellers. These behaviors could be used to categorize the buyer. Based on the categorization, when the buyer submits the offer for the first item, the buyer is presented with the option to accept offers from other sellers for second items that have the characteristic when the acceptance window closes.”. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Mohan it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bauer in view of Longman in view of Kasai in view of Deasy as applied to claim 1 to incorporate the concept of assessing a penalty on the buyer, prior to their selection to purchase the option, because, as shown in Mohan that specific bidder can be categorized as a consistent lower bidder who will never exercise the opportunity to purchase vehicle and thus he is prevented for future accessing the auction for the damaged vehicles, and secondly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of combination were predictable.
3.5 Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Longman in view of Kasai in view of Deasy in view of Mohan in view of WO2005/059787 A2 , hereinafter WO’ 787.
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings of Bauer in view of Longman in view of Kasai in view of Deasy teaches and renders obvious the limitations of claim 21 including teaching to assess a penalty on the buyer and preventing him from the future purchase option, as analyzed above, but fails to teach wherein the penalty includes an increased price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle. WO’787 teaches grading buyers and sellers based upon their behaviors and grading a buyer includes determining their unresolved transactions and then not offering purchase options and a purchase option is offered at an increased price, see page 28, lines 6-26 ” It will be clear that the foregoing could apply to buyers as well as sellers. Thus, any buyer in the system may also move through a number of grades with increasingly demanding restrictions on number and totaled value of transactions which have an unresolved problem flag attached. …... Sellers may be able to stipulate a grade of buyer below which their goods or services are not to be offered as a purchase option or to whom they may be offered but only at an increased price. This allows sellers to avoid buyers who allow large numbers of unresolved transactions to accumulate, possibly indicating that they complain willfully or repeatedly cause sellers to complain about their behaviour. Thus, buyers too are encouraged to resolve their unresolved problem transactions.”. Therefore, in view of the teachings of WO’787 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bauer in view of Longman in view of Kasai in view of Deasy in view of Mohan as applied to claim 20 to incorporate the concept that penalty to the buyer includes an increased price for the option to purchase the damaged vehicle, because, as shown in WP’787 it will discourage the users who refused to exercise their option to purchase the damaged vehicle.
3.6. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Kasai in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 22, Bauer in view of Kasai teaches and renders obvious all the limitations of claim 19, as discussed above, and Bauer further teaches comprising instructions executable to cause the damaged vehicle to be shipped to the buyer for their possession, [See Bauer para 0126, “ If it is determined at step 610 that the policyholder does not want to retain the vehicle, processing moves to step 620, at which step the sale of the vehicle to the high bidder is approved. Step 620 may be performed in any of the ways described above, including notifying the high bidder that the sale is approved and performing steps helpful for completing the transaction. For example, payment and delivery or pickup of the vehicle can be arranged. Bauer does not teach the limitations, “ until a salvage title is procured for the damaged vehicle”. Examiner takes Official Notice of the well-known fact and regulations that for a damaged vehicle beyond repair which is a ”total loss” a salvage title” is required before it can be sold to a third party. Therefore, in view of the Official Notice it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged a salvage title for the user purchasing the damaged vehicle beyond repair and modify the method of Bauer Kasai as applied to claim 1 to include the limitations until a salvage title is procured for the damaged vehicle because to follow the government regulations.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
4.1. Claim rejections under 35 USC 101:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments filed 03/02/2026 on pages 7-8 , “ The pending claims have been amended to further recite, inter alia, that in response to a user purchasing the option, the system modifies availability data associated with the damaged vehicle and, during an option period, restricts presentation of a purchase interface for the damaged vehicle to other users while permitting the user to exercise the option. These limitations are performed by the computing system and impose a specific, system-enforced control over access to a particular vehicle record. As amended, the claims no longer recite merely a commercial transaction or the offering of an option at a high level of abstraction. Rather, the claims now require a particular technological implementation in which the computer system dynamically updates stored vehicle data and controls the presentation of purchase interfaces based on that updated state. This operation is integral to the functioning of the claimed system and cannot be performed as a mental process or by pen and paper. Accordingly, the claims are directed to a practical application that improves the operation of the computer-implemented vehicle purchasing platform by enforcing exclusive access to a vehicle through modification of database state and user interface behavior. The claims therefore do not recite an abstract idea, and even if the Examiner were to maintain that an abstract idea is recited, the additional limitations amount to significantly more than any such abstract idea. In view of the foregoing amendments and the claim limitations now recited, withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is respectfully requested”, because the newly added limitations “the system modifies availability data associated with the damaged vehicle and, during an option period, restricts presentation of a purchase interface for the damaged vehicle to other users while permitting the user to exercise the option.”, when analyzed per Step 2A, Prong One, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, do “set forth” and ‘describe” a Mental Process, as they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observing , evaluating data/information related to the damaged/totaled vehicle and making a simple judgment that in response to receiving a purchase selection deny the availability for the damaged vehicle to others. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. That is, other than reciting “by a computer device” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of by a computer does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process, when analyzed per Step 2A, Prong One.
When these newly added steps are analyzed per Step 2A, Prong Two, it is understood that a computer is used to perform these steps. The computer is recited at a high level of generality to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
When these limitations are analyzed per step 2B, even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Accordingly, the newly added limitations argued by the Applicant do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to “Significantly More”, because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, as analyzed above in paragraph 2, the rejection of the currently amended claims under 35 USC 101 is sustainable and maintained.
4.2. Rejections of claims under 35 USC 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 19 on pages 8-15 have been considered but are not persuasive, because the reference Bauer does teach the newly added limitations, “ in response to receiving the selection from the user to buy the option, update a vehicle status field stored in the database to indicate that the damaged vehicle is subject to the option and to block purchase requests for the damaged vehicle from other users until the option is exercised or expires; and restricting presentation of a purchase interface for the damaged vehicle to the user, in response to receiving the selection from the user to buy the option to purchase the damaged vehicle.”, see Bauer paras 0008-0009 “[0008]…..When a customer buys an item either on a merchant's website or through a mall, the system does not allow the sale to be completed. The system places the item on hold. In an embodiment, a hold is placed on the item automatically for 48 hours. When a customer views an item online that has been placed on hold, a large "on hold" sign is displayed. The sign communicates to the customer that they still may be able to purchase the item and it tells them the time and the date that the hold expires. [0009] Referring to FIGS. 16-50, the system includes a point of sale system (POS). If an item is placed on hold, the item cannot be sold through the point of sale system, and no one else can purchase it through any other avenue, such as at the merchant's own website or the UTOPA.com mall……….”. These excerpts teach that on receiving a purchase confirmation from a buyer, the item [which in the applicant’s case is a damaged vehicle for purchase] the availability is modified so to prevent another buyer to purchase till the hold period exists and therefore reads on the claimed limitations.
In view of the foregoing the rejection of the independent claims 1, 13, and 19 as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Longman in view of Kasai and in view of Deasy is sustainable and maintained.
Regarding dependent claims Applicant’s arguments rise and fall with the independent claims 1, 13, and 19 and since the rejection of the independent claims is sustainable and maintained, the rejection of all pending dependent claims is maintained.
Regarding claim 22, the Applicant’s arguments against Official Notice are similar to the ones already responded in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/31/2025 including provision of the references as evidence for the Official Notice. Applicant’s arguments do not address the reasoning that the Examiner provided therein. Accordingly, as already detailed in the Non-Final Rejection the rejection of claim 22 is sustainable and maintained.
Conclusion
Final Rejection:
5. 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.
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(i) KR 20180006156 A; see page 5, which describes that at the completion of a purchase transaction of an item via an exchange interface, the exchange management server stores the purchased item in the purchaser’s account and prevents it from being displayed through the exchange interface.
(ii) A. Okushi, S. Tokunaga, S. Matsumoto and M. Nakamura, "Sma-Sho: Implementation and Evaluation of a Shopping Support Service Using Receipt Log," 2012 9th Asia-Pacific Symposium on Information and Telecommunication Technologies (APSITT), Santiago and Valparaiso, Chile, 2012, pp. 1-6, retrieved from IP. Com 03/31/2026 describes that the system can help a Nobile device user to prevent buying duplicate items if he has already bought earlier in resent time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688