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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/09/26 has been entered.
1) Claims pending: 1-5, 10-15, and 16-20.
2) Claims canceled: 6-9.
3) Claims active: 1-5 and 10-15.
4) Claims withdrawn: 16-20.
5) Claims amended:
(1) Independent claim: 1.
(2) Dependent claim: 10.
Claim Status
Claims 1-5 and 11-15 are active and being examined. They comprising of 1 group:
1) Article (ntCRSM): 1-5, and 11-15.
As of 01/23/26, independent claim 1 is as followed:
1. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that upon execution cause a system to:
[1] receive, from a vehicle, vehicle component information indicating one or more vehicle components to be serviced;
[2] access service facility information relating to a plurality of vehicle service facilities, wherein the service facility information comprises bidding strategies of the plurality of vehicle service facilities relating to presentation of service information, and wherein each bidding strategy comprises
(i) a bidding rule including information of which vehicle component a respective vehicle service facility has selected for presentation of service information, and
(ii) a bid fee to be paid by the respective vehicle service facility when service information is presented for the respective vehicle service facility;
[3] determine, based on the vehicle component information and the service facility information, at least one vehicle service facility of the plurality of vehicle service facilities that is able to perform servicing of the one or more vehicle components, wherein the determining comprises identifying, based on the bidding strategies, which of the plurality of vehicle service facilities is to be selected for presentation in the user interface; and
[4] cause presentation, in a user interface, of service information relating to vehicle component servicing to be provided by the at least one vehicle service facility.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[4] are added to the beginning of each element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-5 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
1) In independent claim 1, the result of step [1] is “received information about vehicle component with one or more components to be serviced.” Step [2] deals with accessing the service facility for information comprising bidding strategies relating to presentation of service information. There is no discussion of the “components to be serviced” in the bidding strategies, bidding rule, and bid fee, so it’s not clear how these bidding features are carried out without citing the component to be serviced? It’s recommended that the feature “the component to be serviced” to be included in step [2].
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 1-5 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
(1) law of nature,
(2) natural phenomenon, and
(3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(i) a method of organizing human activities,
(2i) an idea of itself, or
(3i) a mathematical relationship or formula.
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Claims 1-5 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Step 1, claims 1-5 and 10-15 are directed to an article.
Article (nt-CRSM): claim 1, are directed to a machine-readable storage medium for evaluating the ability of a vehicle service (VS) facility to perform a service of a vehicle component, comprising the steps of: (1) receiving information of a vehicle component to be serviced, (2) accessing service information of a plurality of vehicle service facilities, (3) determining at least one VS facility that is able to perform the service, and (4) presenting the service information of the determined VS facility in a user interface and causing a bid fee to be paid. (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception (abstract idea, law of nature, or Natural Phenome? MPEP 2106.04.
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A, prong One:
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea of for method for evaluating the ability of a vehicle service (VS) facility to perform a service of a vehicle component, comprising the steps of: (1) receiving information of a vehicle component to be serviced, (2) accessing service information of a plurality of vehicle service facilities, (3) determining at least one VS facility that is able to perform the service, and (4) presenting the service information of the determined VS facility in a user interface and causing a bid fee to be paid.
These recited limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to business process for evaluating and determining a condition of a vehicle service facility capable of performing a service, using a prediction model and generating a prediction capability value. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
These steps are those which could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites a series of steps carried out by a computing device, comprising:
Steps: Types
[1] receive vehicle component information (data). Data gathering, insignificant extra-solution activity (IE-SA).
[2] access service facility information (data) Data gathering, IE-SA.
[3] determine .. a vehicle service facility… Mental (evaluation) step.
[4] present service information (data) on a GUI, Data displaying, IE-SA.
And causing a bid fee to be paid. Post solution activity, IE-SA.
Thus under Step 2A, prong 1, the steps [1]-[4] recites steps which may fit within the category of “mental process” which is an abstract idea.
B. Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for evaluating the ability of a vehicle service (VS) facility to perform a service of a vehicle component, using a prediction model and generating a prediction value (facility).
The claims recites the additional elements which are steps [1]-[4] cited above, data repository, processor, and memory storing instructions.
Steps [1], [2], and [4] are data gathering and data displaying, and paying a fee, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity step.
Step [3] is well known mental steps for evaluating and determining a condition of a vehicle service facility (repair shop), using a prediction model and generating a prediction value.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer devices or modules or software, i.e. an electronic device having a processor with a software application thereon. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for evaluating the ability of a vehicle service (VS) facility to perform a service of a vehicle component, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data, transmit a fee data to an entity) 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.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: steps [1]-[4], data repository, processor, and memory storing instructions.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements performing generic computer functions.
The claimed invention is basically “a data processing system” comprising the steps of receiving data, querying data, analyzing data by the various determining steps, and generating analytics result using an analytic model.
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
The claims recites the additional elements which are steps [1]-[4] cited above, data repository, processor, and memory storing instructions.
Steps [1], [2], and [4] are data gathering, data displaying, and transmitting a fee data to an entity, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity step.
Step [3] is well known mental steps for evaluating and determining a condition of a vehicle service facility (repair shop), using a prediction model and generating a prediction value.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer devices or modules or software, i.e. an electronic device having a processor with a software application thereon. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for evaluating the ability of a vehicle service (VS) facility to perform a service of a vehicle component, using a prediction model and generating a prediction value (facility), which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitates the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system model for determining maintenance activity capability of an asset. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
As for dep. claims 2-4 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the vehicle component (VC) information, these further limit the abstract idea of prediction analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 2-4 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 5 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the vehicle service facility, these further limit the abstract idea of prediction analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 5 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 10 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the bidding of the vehicle service facility, these further limit the abstract idea of prediction analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 10 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 11-13 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the communication with the vehicle service facility, these further limit the abstract idea of prediction analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 11-13 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 14 (part of 1 above), which deals with further details of the data displaying GUI features, this further limits the abstract idea of the result analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 14 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 15 (part of 1 above), which deals with further details of the vehicle service facility, this further limits the abstract idea of prediction analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 15 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 1-15 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
On October 10, 2007, the Patent Office issued the "Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.," 73 Fed. Reg. 57,526 (2007) (hereinafter the Examination Guidelines). Section III is entitled "Rationales to support rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103." Within this section is the following quote from the Supreme Court: "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by merely conclusory statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Under the Examination Guidelines, the following is a list of rationales that may be used to support a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(d) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(e) "Obvious to try" choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(f) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
(g) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Each rationale is resolved using the Graham factual inquiries.
Claims 1, 5 and 10-15 (article1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over:
Names Publications:
(1) JOAO 2002/0.016.655, and
(2) WO 2019/067.803.
As for independent claims 1, JOAO discloses the steps of:
[1] receive, from a vehicle, vehicle component information indicating one or more vehicle components to be serviced;
PNG
media_image1.png
365
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
288
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
235
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
{See Fig. 1, “vehicle computer (30), “Central processing computer (10)” and respective [0156] which says that the vehicle computer 30 can communicate with, and operate in conjunction with, the central processing computer 10, and/or any of the other computers. [0287] which teaches “receive and process the vehicle problems data or information… diagnostic…, repair information, servicing information...” In view of the teaching “receive and process the vehicle problems data” in [0287], the receiving of vehicle component information from the vehicle is inherently included in JOAO or would have been obvious to do so for direct communication.}
[2] access service facility information relating to a plurality of vehicle service facilities, wherein the service facility information comprises bidding strategies of the plurality of vehicle service facilities relating to presentation of service information, and wherein each bidding strategy comprises
{See Fig. 1, where CP Computer (10) can communicate with Service facility such as Vehicle Manufacturer computer (50), “Vehicle Service Provider Computer (60)”, “Vehicle Parts Provider Computer (70).”, and respective [0166.. can communicate with, process information from, and/or share data and information with… transfer data can occur between any of the computers…”]
As for the feature of the service information comprises bidding strategies for the service, this is taught in [0379 …bidding for, …, any of the herein-described vehicle repair service, …], [0383]-[]0385]. As for the term “strategies,” this is inherently included in the teaching of JOAO since for the bidding to be successful, it has to strategies and rules to carry out the bidding process among plurality of bidders.
PNG
media_image4.png
380
480
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[3] determine, based on the vehicle component information and the service facility information, at least one vehicle service facility of the plurality of vehicle service facilities that is able to perform servicing of the one or more vehicle components; and
PNG
media_image5.png
342
485
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[4] cause presentation, in a user interface, of service information relating to vehicle component servicing to be provided by the at least one vehicle service facility.
See Fig. 2, Display device 10E, and respective 0173 “a display device 10E for displaying data and/or information to a user or operator.
PNG
media_image6.png
297
479
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As for the feature of “playing data relating to vehicle servicing component provided by at least a service provider,” in view of the general teaching in [0173 … CP computer 10 also includes a display device 10E for displaying data to a user or operator…] and [0290] and [0296], it would have been obvious to display relating to vehicle servicing component provided by at least a service provider to the user for informing the user if desired.
JOAO fairly teaches the claimed invention except for the details of the bidding strategy, comprising a bidding rule including information of which vehicle component a respective vehicle service facility has selected for presentation of service information, and a bid fee to be paid by the respective vehicle service facility when service information is presented for the respective vehicle service facility;
In a method/system for auctions, WO 2019/067.803 A1 teaches various features of a bidding action, comprising bidding rules with information of the bidding item/service and a bid fee to be paid by the bidders associated with the winning bid for the auctioned goods/services.
PNG
media_image7.png
256
626
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify the vehicle maintenance system of JOAO to include various features of a bidding activity, comprising bidding strategies and rules with information of the bidding item/service and a bid fee to be paid by the bidders associated with the winning bid for the auctioned goods/services as taught by WO 2019/067.803 A1 for carrying out a bid effectively, see [0022]. Rational G/combine.
As for the amended feature in [3] “determine, …, which of the plurality of vehicle service facility is to be selected for presentation,” WO 2019/067.803 A1 teaches in [0022] that the system utilizes the values of multiple bids having designated ranks, 2nd highest, 3rd highest, 4th highest, 2nd lowest, etc., to compute a payment for the winning bid for the auctioned goods/services. The selection of the first highest rank for the presentation in the user interface would have been obvious if this is shown in the predetermined rules.
As for dep. claim 5 (part of 1 above), which deals with details of the information of the vehicle by the service facility, this is taught in [0296] cited above.
PNG
media_image5.png
342
485
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As for dep. claim 10 (part of 1 above), which deals the presentation in the user interface, service information by the service facilities, this is taught in [0411… deals reached, between any of the parties, can be monitored, and recorded … and stored in the database 10H]. The display of the deals reached on the user interface for monitoring would have been obvious.
As for dep. claims 11-12 (part of 1 above), which deal communication between the user and the service providers for the servicing of the vehicle components, these are taught in Fig. 12C and respective [0296].
PNG
media_image8.png
452
482
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
331
480
media_image9.png
Greyscale
As for dep. claims 13-14 (part of 1 above), which deal communication between the user and the service providers for the servicing of the vehicle components such as scheduling activities, these are taught in JOAO Fig. 12C, Fig. 13, 303, 304 and respective [0296] and SCHONDORF ET AL. Fig. 1., 121, vehicle, or electronic device 103.
As for dep. claim 15 (part of 1 above), which deal communication between the user and the service providers for the servicing of the vehicle components such as scheduling activities, these are taught in JOAO Fig. 12C, Fig. 13, 303, 304 and respective [0296] and [0411 … deals reached,..]. As for the user’s objective that seek to combine multiple services into a single service visit, this is taught in JOAO [0009-0011] or SCHONDORF ET AL. [0009-0010].
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOAO /WO 2019/067.803 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (3) SCHONDORF ET AL., US 2011/0.071.720.
As for dep. claim 2, in a similar system and method for monitoring the condition of a vehicle components, SCHONDORF ET AL. discloses the use of sensors on the vehicle to collect information about the vehicle and vehicle components, see [0006].
PNG
media_image10.png
350
479
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify the vehicle maintenance system of JOAO /WO 2019/067.803 A1 to include sensors on the vehicle as taught by SCHONDORF ET AL. to collect information about the vehicle and vehicle components gas, see [0006]. Rational G/combine.
As for dep. claim 3 (part of 1/ 2 above), which deals with the prediction by the sensor for the service of the component, this is taught in SCHONDORF ET AL. [006] and [0004 …that the car needs a servicing..].
As for dep. claim 4 (part of 1 above), which deals with the prediction by the sensor showing a current condition of the vehicle, this is taught in SCHONDORF ET AL. [006 … state of the vehicle or its component…] and [0004 …that the car needs a servicing..].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/09/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1. 101 Rejection:
(1) Step 2A, Prong 1: applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the use of a GUI for presentation and the use of a business rule such as a bid fee is triggered when service information is presented are well known tools for displaying and the use of well known business rule for triggering an event do not make it less abstract. The claim still a method for organizing human activities using a GUI and a business rule.
(2) Step 2A, Prong 2: applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the use of a GUI for presentation and the use of a business rule such as a bid fee is triggered when service information is presented are well known tools for displaying and the use of well known business rule for triggering an event do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
(3) Step 2B: applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the use of a GUI for presentation and the use of a business rule such as a bid fee is triggered when service information is presented are well known tools for displaying and the use of well known business rule for triggering an event do not add an inventive concept (significantly more) than the abstract idea.
2. 103 Rejection:
Applicant’s comment that JOAO fails to teach the amended features in claim 1 is noted, however, WO 2019/067.803 A1 is cited to teach the amended features of a bidding action, comprising bidding rules with information of the bidding item/service and a bid fee to be paid by the bidders associated with the winning bid for the auctioned goods/services.
Conclusion
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.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6:30-4:30 PM (ET).
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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689