DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This office action is in response to application number 18/172,332 filed on 02/22/2023, and the amendments and arguments filed on 07/25/2025.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 have been amended.
No claims have been added.
Claims 5 and 10 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-040804, filed on 3/15/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS(s)) submitted on 02/22/2023 have been
received and considered.
Response to Amendment
5. Applicant' s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/26/2025. Applicants arguments, see page 6 filed on 07/25/205, with respect to the rejection of claims 9 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and persuasive. Applicant’s arguments, see page 6-8 filed 07/25/2025, with respect to the rejections(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the USC 101 rejection arguments were not persuasive and the applicant has further narrowed the abstract idea thus the 101 has not been overcome. A new grounds for rejection is made under 35 USC 103 as necessitated by amendment in view of Lavie (US 20160133066 A1) further in view of Tanaka (US 20230023095 A1) further in view of Kelly (US 7542833 B2) and further in view of Griffin (US 20160035008 A1).
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.
6. The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
• STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or
natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
• STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
• STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A consumable part replacement time calculation system comprising:
- a mileage acquirer acquiring mileage of a movable body in response to an being turned on or off; [(data gathering)]
- a consumable part consumption degree grasper grasping a consumption status of a consumable part provided in the movable body, where the consumable part is engine oil, and the consumption status is a residual rate of the engine oil; [(data gathering)]
- an average mileage calculator calculating, when a value of data from the consumable part consumption degree grasper has been restored to an initial value a plurality of times, an average value of mileage between two adjacent restorations to the initial value; [mental process and mathematical concept]
- a replacement-time mileage calculator calculating replacement time of the consumable part by dividing total mileage traveled by the movable body by the number of times of the value of the data from the consumable part consumption degree grasper having been restored to the initial value, wherein the replacement-time mileage calculator determines average mileage per day of the movable body, determines a difference by subtracting a value of a most recent mileage from the average value of mileage, divides the difference by the average mileage per day, and thereby determines a date that is expected to be a date of replacement of the consumable part. [mental process and mathematical concept]
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a system (i.e., a machine). The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental process and Mathematical concept
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be
analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following
groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain
methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions
in terms of “mental processes and mathematical concepts” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a
human using a pen and paper” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and “recites a mathematical
calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
specification.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitations of an average mileage calculator calculating, when a
value of data from the consumable part consumption degree grasper has been restored to an initial value a plurality of times, an average value of mileage between two adjacent
restorations to the initial value;
a replacement-time mileage calculator calculating replacement time of the consumable part by dividing total mileage traveled by the movable body by the number of times of the value of the data from the consumable part consumption degree grasper having been restored to the initial value, wherein the replacement-time mileage calculator determines average mileage per day of the movable body, determines a difference by subtracting a value of a most recent mileage from the average value of mileage, divides the difference by the average mileage per day, and thereby determines a date that is expected to be a date of replacement of the consumable part.
These limitations, as drafted, are mathematical calculations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a “a mileage acquirer acquiring mileage of a movable body in response to an being turned on or off;” “a consumable part consumption degree grasper grasping a consumption status of a consumable part provided in the movable body, where the consumable part is engine oil, and the consumption status is a residual rate of the engine oil;” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed in the mind. The additional elements in the claim do not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Additionally, these limitations, as drafted, are mathematical calculations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations but for the recitation of a “a mileage acquirer acquiring mileage of a movable body in response to an being turned on or off;” “a consumable part consumption degree grasper grasping a consumption status of a consumable part provided in the movable body, where the consumable part is engine oil, and the consumption status is a residual rate of the engine oil;” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from a mathematical calculation. The additional elements in the claim do not take the claim limitations out of the mathematical calculation grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical calculation.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it
integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP
2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the
abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional
elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding
insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a
particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into
a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that does integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of “a mileage acquirer acquiring mileage of a movable body in response to an being turned on or off; and a consumable part consumption degree grasper grasping a consumption status of a consumable part provided in the movable body, where the consumable part is engine oil, and the consumption status is a residual rate of the engine oil;” these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In particular, “a mileage acquirer acquiring mileage of a movable body in response to an being turned on or off;” and “a consumable part consumption degree grasper grasping a consumption status of a consumable part provided in the movable body, where the consumable part is engine oil, and the consumption status is a residual rate of the engine oil;” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because one of the limitations imposes meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to 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.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, one of the additional elements in the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-
solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, “a mileage acquirer acquiring mileage of a movable body in response to an being turned on or off;” and “a consumable part consumption degree grasper grasping a consumption status of a consumable part provided in the movable body, where the consumable part is engine oil, and the consumption status is a residual rate of the engine oil;” to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The specification does not provide any indication that the mileage acquirer and the consumption degree grasper is nothing other than just software collecting data [Paragraph 0006].
Hence, the specification indicates that “acquiring mileage of a movable body in response to an being turned on or off” and “a consumable part consumption degree grasper grasping a consumption status of a consumable part provided in the movable body, where the consumable part is engine oil, and the consumption status is a residual rate of the engine oil;” is a well‐ understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
The limitations of claim 2-4 and 7-9 merely are there to merely add additional insignificant extra solution activity such as “a position acquirer that acquirers a position…”.The specification does not provide any indication that the position acquirer is anything other than software that gets the position of a vehicle at a certain point in time. The specification further does not provide any indication that the position acquirer does not merely acquire a position. The claim does not recite anything that precludes it from the mental process grouping. For the reason described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The limitations of claims 3 are there to merely serve to add and further characterize insignificant extra solution activity. For these reasons described above with respect to claim 2 this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The limitations of claim 4 are there to merely serve to add and further characterize insignificant extra solution activity. For these reasons described above with respect to claim 3 this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus the claim is ineligible.
Independent method claim 6 recites similar limitations performed by the machine of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Dependent claims 2-4 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be
patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea, can be performed in the human mind, and are merely a mathematical calculation. Therefore, dependent claims 2-4 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Independent method claim 6 recites similar limitations performed by the machine of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1
as outlined above.
Dependent claims 7-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or adding insignificant extra solution activity do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
Therefore, dependent claims 1-4 and 6-9 are not patent eligible under the same rationale
as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-9 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
7. Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they cover both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. More specifically, Claims 1 and 6 are directed to software that must be embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium that cover signals per se, which are non-statutory subject matter.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to software that should be embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory computer readable medium” to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C §101 as it is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavie (US 20160133066 A1) in view of Tanaka (US 20230023095 A1) further in view of (US 7542833 B2) to Kelly et al. (hereinafter Kelly) and further in view of Griffin (US 20160035008 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lavie discloses A consumable part replacement time calculation system comprising: (Lavie Paragraph 0039: “Systems designed to assess and predict maintenance and service resulting from normal usage of a vehicle can come in a variety of configurations. In an embodiment, FIG. 1 depicts how a system for prediction is developed. Primary components are:”) (Lavie Paragraph 0041: “Database of historical maintenance information 104 ”) (Lavie Paragraph 0109: “Armed with the populated historical vehicle maintenance and service database, predictive functions can be developed. As a starting point, it can be assumed that maintenance is a function of the specific vehicle, and the miles driven. Using this assumption, a query can be run on the database to find the average lifetime (in terms of mileage driven and/or in terms of time since installation)”) […] a consumable part consumption degree grasper grasping a consumption status of a consumable part provided in the movable body, where the consumable part is engine oil, and the consumption status is a residual rate of the engine oil; (Lavie Paragraph 0122: The maintenance review module provided with the input data from the accident, then plugs in the information into the predictive model and returns a prediction.) (Lavie Paragraph 0123: The prediction will include some or all of the following:”) (Lavie Paragraph 0124: “A listing of parts that should be replaced (and optionally probabilities how long a part will last without replacement)”) (Lavie Paragraph 0125: “A listing of costs associated with each part (for the region of the accident)”) (Lavie Paragraph 0126: “Materials such as oil and antifreeze”) […] and a replacement-time mileage calculator calculating replacement time of the consumable part by dividing total mileage traveled by the movable body by the number of times of the value of the data from the consumable part consumption degree grasper having been restored to the initial value, (Lavie Paragraph 0109: “Armed with the populated historical vehicle maintenance and service database, predictive functions can be developed. As a starting point, it can be assumed that maintenance is a function of the specific vehicle, and the miles driven. Using this assumption, a query can be run on the database to find the average lifetime (in terms of mileage driven and/or in terms of time since installation) of all parts and determine which parts need to be replaced at what mileage.”) (Note: The parts gets restored to an initial value when the part gets installed)
Lavie does not teach a mileage acquirer acquiring mileage of a movable body in response to an ignition being turned on or off; […] an average mileage calculator calculating, when a value of data from the consumable part consumption degree grasper has been restored to an initial value a plurality of times, an average value of mileage between two adjacent restorations to the initial value; wherein the replacement-time mileage calculator determines average mileage per day of the movable body, determines a difference by subtracting a value of a most recent mileage […], divides the difference by the average mileage per day, and thereby determines a date that is expected to be a date of replacement of the consumable part.
However, Tanaka does teach a mileage acquirer acquiring mileage of a movable body in response to an ignition being turned on or off; (Tanaka Paragraph 0042: “In this case, when the ignition switch of the vehicle 2 is turned on, the processor 23 obtains information indicating the total mileage of the vehicle 2 from the ECU (not illustrated), and stores it in the memory 22 as the total mileage at the start of travel. Thereafter, when the ignition switch of the vehicle 2 is turned off, the processor 23 obtains information indicating the total mileage of the vehicle 2 again from the ECU, and determines it as the total mileage at the end of travel.”)
Therefore, 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 Lavie to include a mileage acquirer acquiring mileage of a movable body in response to an ignition being turned on or off; taught by Tanaka. This would have been for the benefit to provide an apparatus for collecting feature data that can equalize the amount of transmitted feature data among vehicles. [Tanaka, 0005]
Tanaka does not teach an average mileage calculator calculating, when a value of data from the consumable part consumption degree grasper has been restored to an initial value a plurality of times, an average value of mileage between two adjacent restorations to the initial value; […] from the average value of mileage […]
However, Kelly does teach an average mileage calculator calculating, when a value of data from the consumable part consumption degree grasper has been restored to an initial value a plurality of times, an average value of mileage between two adjacent restorations to the initial value; (Kelly Paragraph Column 7, 29-41: “The mileage used in Equation 4 could be either to the total mileage of the vehicle, or it could be the incremental mileage between the last visit and a prior visit (or even between any two prior mileage readings). If the total mileage of the vehicle is used, the days elapsed used in Eqn. 4 will be the age of the vehicle in days. If the incremental mileage is used, then the days elapsed is the number of days between the two prior mileage readings, which in the presently preferred alternate embodiment is the two most recent prior service visits. As above, the mileage could be from an actual reading or another estimate. After calculating the average daily mileage for the particular vehicle at step 503, the system proceeds to step 504.”) (Note: if the average daily mileage is able to be determine from two service dates when restoring a part to an initial value. The average mileage can also be determined) […] from the average value of mileage (Kelly Paragraph Column 7, 29-41: “The mileage used in Equation 4 could be either to the total mileage of the vehicle, or it could be the incremental mileage between the last visit and a prior visit (or even between any two prior mileage readings). If the total mileage of the vehicle is used, the days elapsed used in Eqn. 4 will be the age of the vehicle in days. If the incremental mileage is used, then the days elapsed is the number of days between the two prior mileage readings, which in the presently preferred alternate embodiment is the two most recent prior service visits. As above, the mileage could be from an actual reading or another estimate. After calculating the average daily mileage for the particular vehicle at step 503, the system proceeds to step 504.”) (Note: if the average daily mileage is able to be determine from two service dates when restoring a part to an initial value. The average mileage can also be determined) […]
Therefore, 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 Lavie in view of Tanaka to include an average mileage calculator calculating, when a value of data from the consumable part consumption degree grasper has been restored to an initial value a plurality of times, an average value of mileage between two adjacent restorations to the initial value; taught by Kelly. This would have been for the benefit to provide a computer based system and method for generating reminders for mileage dependent servicing of vehicles. According to one aspect of the invention, a service reminder is generated by estimating a vehicles mileage and determining whether the estimated mileage falls within a relevant service window, and sending the service reminder if the mileage falls within the relevant service window. [Kelly Column 2, line number 15-22].
Kelly does not teach wherein the replacement-time mileage calculator determines average mileage per day of the movable body, determines a difference by subtracting a value of a most recent mileage […], divides the difference by the average mileage per day, and thereby determines a date that is expected to be a date of replacement of the consumable part.
However, Griffin does teach wherein the replacement-time mileage calculator determines average mileage per day of the movable body, determines a difference by subtracting a value of a most recent mileage […], divides the difference by the average mileage per day, and thereby determines a date that is expected to be a date of replacement of the consumable part. (Griffin Paragraph 0056: “Similarly, a service center warranty program covering the purchase and installation of tires may have a warranty structure that requires that the vehicle be checked prior to the vehicle hitting 5,000 miles from the date the tires were installed.”) (Griffin Paragraph 0057: “The present invention may then calculate an average number of miles a vehicle is driven. This average number can then be used to estimate when the actions required by the warranty program should be performed.”) (Griffin Paragraph 0057: “For example, if a previous service indicates that the mileage of the vehicle was 10,000 and another service performed 90 days after the previous service indicates the mileage of the vehicle was 15,000, the average number of miles per day can be calculated as 5,000/90=55.6 miles/day.”) (Griffin Paragraph 0058: “Using this average number of miles per day, the current mileage of the vehicle, and the warranty structure, the present invention can estimate one or more future dates when an action will need to be performed to comply with the warranty structure. Using the same numbers as above, if the warranty structure for a particular warranty requires that a rear differential service be performed at 35,000 miles, the present invention can estimate that the vehicle will reach 35,000 miles in approximately (35,000−15,000)/55.6≈300 days. Based on this estimation, the present invention can create a reminder in the customer's account indicating that the rear differential service should be performed prior to the date that is 300 days from the current date.”)
Therefore, 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 Lavie in view of Tanaka further in view of Kelly to include wherein the replacement-time mileage calculator determines average mileage per day of the movable body, determines a difference by subtracting a value of a most recent mileage […], divides the difference by the average mileage per day, and thereby determines a date that is expected to be a date of replacement of the consumable part taught by Griffin. This would have been for the benefit to provide methods, systems, and computer program products for allowing a customer to select vehicle services prior to visiting a service center. [Griffin Paragraph 0006].
Regarding claim 2, The consumable part replacement time calculation system according to claim 1,further comprising a position acquirer acquiring a position of the movable body at a time of replacement of the consumable part. (Lavie Paragraph 0032: “Maintenance required is a function, for example, of what kind of vehicle was being driven, the age and condition of the vehicle, the location, road or terrain conditions driven over and previous maintenance conducted on the vehicle. The cost of maintenance, for example, is a function of the location of the maintenance (regional variation in parts costs and labor costs), whether the maintenance is scheduled and the parts that need to be replaced.”)
Regarding claim 3, Lavie Discloses The consumable part replacement time calculation system according to claim 2,further comprising a data receiver receiving data from the mileage acquirer, the data from the consumable part consumption degree grasper, and data from the position acquirer. (Lavie Paragraph 0043: When initially constructing the system, a database 104 that is part of the maintenance review module 110 must be created. Multiple sources of information 106 are used which include vehicle mileage records, driving condition logs, in-vehicle sensor logs, maintenance reports from repair shops, fleet management records, failure reports, repair invoices, parts lists, and the like”) (Lavie Paragraph 0043: “The data collection module can communicate with a maintenance review module 110 which can either be located in the vehicle or remote to the vehicle.”) (Lavie Paragraph 0048: “If the vehicle data collection module has software running on a general purpose computing device such as a mobile phone,”) (Lavie Paragraph 0049: “Sensor that are part of the mobile device can also be considered in-vehicle sensors provided the device is in or attached to the vehicle. These types of sensors can include gyroscopes, accelerometers, altimeters and GPS,”) (Lavie Paragraph 0122: The maintenance review module provided with the input data from the accident, then plugs in the information into the predictive model and returns a prediction.) (Lavie Paragraph 0123: The prediction will include some or all of the following:”) (Lavie Paragraph 0124: “A listing of parts that should be replaced (and optionally probabilities how long a part will last without replacement)”)
Regarding claim 4, Lavie discloses The consumable part replacement time calculation system according to claim 3, wherein the data receiver includes general map information and a replacement place register with which places where replacement of the consumable part is possible are registered in advance. (Lavie Paragraph 0048: “If the vehicle data collection module has software running on a general purpose computing device such as a mobile phone,”) (Lavie Paragraph 0049: “Sensor that are part of the mobile device can also be considered in-vehicle sensors provided the device is in or attached to the vehicle. These types of sensors can include gyroscopes, accelerometers, altimeters and GPS,”) (Lavie Paragraph 0128: “In embodiments, additional information is in the database or in a second linked database. This additional information includes an inventory of parts and their location. In addition it may include the workload or backlog of various service technicians and their availability to perform the predicted maintenance or service that need to be done. Additional functionality of the accident review module in embodiments can do one or more of determining the availability of parts, materials and labor and/or request bids for each from providers that have the part/s, materials or time. The review module, in some embodiments will schedule delivery of the parts and service labor based on the availability.”) (Note: The review module will schedule service labor based on the availability in order to determine a place where a consumable part can be registered in advance.)
Regarding claim 6, Lavie discloses A consumable part replacement time calculation method comprising the steps of: (Lavie Paragraph 0039: “Systems designed to assess and predict maintenance and service resulting from normal usage of a vehicle can come in a variety of configurations. In an embodiment, FIG. 1 depicts how a system for prediction is developed. Primary components are:”) (Lavie Paragraph 0041: “Database of historical maintenance information 104 ”) (Lavie Paragraph 0109: “Armed with the populated historical vehicle maintenance and service database, predictive functions can be developed. As a starting point, it can be assumed that maintenance is a function of the specific vehicle, and the miles driven. Using this assumption, a query can be run on the database to find the average lifetime (in terms of mileage driven and/or in terms of time since installation)”) […] grasping a consumption status of a consumable part provided in the movable body, where the consumable part is engine oil, and the consumption status is a residual rate of the engine oil; (Lavie Paragraph 0122: The maintenance review module provided with the input data from the accident, then plugs in the information into the predictive model and returns a prediction.) (Lavie Paragraph 0123: The prediction will include some or all of the following:”) (Lavie Paragraph 0124: “A listing of parts that should be replaced (and optionally probabilities how long a part will last without replacement)”) (Lavie Paragraph 0125: “A listing of costs associated with each part (for the region of the accident)”) (Lavie Paragraph 0126: “Materials such as oil and antifreeze”) […] and calculating replacement time of the consumable part by dividing total mileage traveled by the movable body by the number of times of the value of the data of the consumption status of the consumable part having returned to the initial value, (Lavie Paragraph 0109: “Armed with the populated historical vehicle maintenance and service database, predictive functions can be developed. As a starting point, it can be assumed that maintenance is a function of the specific vehicle, and the miles driven. Using this assumption, a query can be run on the database to find the average lifetime (in terms of mileage driven and/or in terms of time since installation) of all parts and determine which parts need to be replaced at what mileage.”) (Note: The parts gets restored to an initial value when the part gets installed)
Lavie does not teach a mileage acquirer acquiring mileage of a movable body in response to an ignition being turned on or off; […] acquiring mileage in response to an ignition of a movable body being turned on or off; calculating, when a value of data of the consumption status of the consumable part has been restored to an initial value a plurality of times, an average value of mileage between two adjacent restorations to the initial value; wherein the step of calculating replacement time of the consumable part includes determining average mileage per day of the movable body, determining a difference by subtracting a value of a most recent mileage […], dividing the difference by the average mileage per day, and thereby determining a date that is expected to be a date of replacement of the consumable part.
However, Tanaka does teach acquiring mileage in response to an ignition of a movable body being turned on or off; (Tanaka Paragraph 0042: “In this case, when the ignition switch of the vehicle 2 is turned on, the processor 23 obtains information indicating the total mileage of the vehicle 2 from the ECU (not illustrated), and stores it in the memory 22 as the total mileage at the start of travel. Thereafter, when the ignition switch of the vehicle 2 is turned off, the processor 23 obtains information indicating the total mileage of the vehicle 2 again from the ECU, and determines it as the total mileage at the end of travel.”)
Therefore, 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 Lavie to include acquiring mileage in response to an ignition of a movable body being turned on or off; taught by Tanaka. This would have been for the benefit to provide an apparatus for collecting feature data that can equalize the amount of transmitted feature data among vehicles. [Tanaka, 0005]
Tanaka does not teach calculating, when a value of data of the consumption status of the consumable part has been restored to an initial value a plurality of times, an average value of mileage between two adjacent restorations to the initial value; […] from the average value of mileage […].
However, Kelly does teach calculating, when a value of data of the consumption status of the consumable part has been restored to an initial value a plurality of times, an average value of mileage between two adjacent restorations to the initial value; (Kelly Paragraph Column 7, 29-41: “The mileage used in Equation 4 could be either to the total mileage of the vehicle, or it could be the incremental mileage between the last visit and a prior visit (or even between any two prior mileage readings). If the total mileage of the vehicle is used, the days elapsed used in Eqn. 4 will be the age of the vehicle in days. If the incremental mileage is used, then the days elapsed is the number of days between the two prior mileage readings, which in the presently preferred alternate embodiment is the two most recent prior service visits. As above, the mileage could be from an actual reading or another estimate. After calculating the average daily mileage for the particular vehicle at step 503, the system proceeds to step 504.”) (Note: if the average daily mileage is able to be determine from two service dates when restoring a part to an initial value. The average mileage can also be determined) […] from the average value of mileage (Kelly Paragraph Column 7, 29-41: “The mileage used in Equation 4 could be either to the total mileage of the vehicle, or it could be the incremental mileage between the last visit and a prior visit (or even between any two prior mileage readings). If the total mileage of the vehicle is used, the days elapsed used in Eqn. 4 will be the age of the vehicle in days. If the incremental mileage is used, then the days elapsed is the number of days between the two prior mileage readings, which in the presently preferred alternate embodiment is the two most recent prior service visits. As above, the mileage could be from an actual reading or another estimate. After calculating the average daily mileage for the particular vehicle at step 503, the system proceeds to step 504.”) (Note: if the average daily mileage is able to be determine from two service dates when restoring a part to an initial value. The average mileage can also be determined) […].
Therefore, 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 Lavie in view of Tanaka to include calculating, when a value of data of the consumption status of the consumable part has been restored to an initial value a plurality of times, an average value of mileage between two adjacent restorations to the initial value; […] from the average value of mileage […] taught by Kelly. This would have been for the benefit to provide a computer based system and method for generating reminders for mileage dependent servicing of vehicles. According to one aspect of the invention, a service reminder is generated by estimating a vehicles mileage and determining whether the estimated mileage falls within a relevant service window, and sending the service reminder if the mileage falls within the relevant service window. [Kelly Column 2, line number 15-22].
Kelly does not teach wherein the step of calculating replacement time of the consumable part includes determining average mileage per day of the movable body, determining a difference by subtracting a value of a most recent mileage […], dividing the difference by the average mileage per day, and thereby determining a date that is expected to be a date of replacement of the consumable part.
However, Griffin does teach wherein the step of calculating replacement time of the consumable part includes determining average mileage per day of the movable body, determining a difference by subtracting a value of a most recent mileage […], dividing the difference by the average mileage per day, and thereby determining a date that is expected to be a date of replacement of the consumable part. (Griffin Paragraph 0056: “Similarly, a service center warranty program covering the purchase and installation of tires may have a warranty structure that requires that the vehicle be checked prior to the vehicle hitting 5,000 miles from the date the tires were installed.”) (Griffin Paragraph 0057: “The present invention may then calculate an average number of miles a vehicle is driven. This average number can then be used to estimate when the actions required by the warranty program should be performed.”) (Griffin Paragraph 0057: “For example, if a previous service indicates that the mileage of the vehicle was 10,000 and another service performed 90 days after the previous service indicates the mileage of the vehicle was 15,000, the average number of miles per day can be calculated as 5,000/90=55.6 miles/day.”) (Griffin Paragraph 0058: “Using this average number of miles per day, the current mileage of the vehicle, and the warranty structure, the present invention can estimate one or more future dates when an action will need to be performed to comply with the warranty structure. Using the same numbers as above, if the warranty structure for a particular warranty requires that a rear differential service be performed at 35,000 miles, the present invention can estimate that the vehicle will reach 35,000 miles in approximately (35,000−15,000)/55.6≈300 days. Based on this estimation, the present invention can create a reminder in the customer's account indicating that the rear differential service should be performed prior to the date that is 300 days from the current date.”)
Therefore, 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 Lavie in view of Tanaka further in view of Kelly to include wherein the step of calculating replacement time of the consumable part includes determining average mileage per day of the movable body, determining a difference by subtracting a value of a most recent mileage […], dividing the difference by the average mileage per day, and thereby determining a date that is expected to be a date of replacement of the consumable part taught by Griffin. This would have been for the benefit to provide methods, systems, and computer program products for allowing a customer to select vehicle services prior to visiting a service center. [Griffin Paragraph 0006]
Regarding claim 7, Lavie discloses The consumable part replacement time calculation method according to claim 6, further comprising a step of acquiring a position of the movable body at a time of restoration to the initial value. (Lavie Paragraph 0059: “Raw data that may be used to predict maintenance and service needed can come from a plurality of sources. Sources include:”) (Lavie Paragraph 0064: “GPS for speed and direction of travel”) (Lavie Paragraph 0075: “Note that the historical maintenance and repair “database” may be distributed, so that, for example, the predictive function may be in the vehicle and the historical raw data may be on a central server.”) (Note: GPS is used to determine the position of the car at all times)
Regarding claim 8, Lavie discloses The consumable part replacement time calculation method according to claim 6, further comprising a step of receiving data of the mileage, the data of the consumption status of the consumable part, and data of a position of the movable body at a time of restoration to the initial value. (Lavie Paragraph 0043: When initially constructing the system, a database 104 that is part of the maintenance review module 110 must be created. Multiple sources of information 106 are used which include vehicle mileage records, driving condition logs, in-vehicle sensor logs, maintenance reports from repair shops, fleet management records, failure reports, repair invoices, parts lists, and the like”) (Lavie Paragraph 0043: “The data collection module can communicate with a maintenance review module 110 which can either be located in the vehicle or remote to the vehicle.”) (Lavie Paragraph 0048: “If the vehicle data collection module has software running on a general purpose computing device such as a mobile phone,”) (Lavie Paragraph 0049: “Sensor that are part of the mobile device can also be considered in-vehicle sensors provided the device is in or attached to the vehicle. These types of sensors can include gyroscopes, accelerometers, altimeters and GPS,”) (Lavie Paragraph 0122: The maintenance review module provided with the input data from the accident, then plugs in the information into the predictive model and returns a prediction.) (Lavie Paragraph 0123: The prediction will include some or all of the following:”) (Lavie Paragraph 0124: “A listing of parts that should be replaced (and optionally probabilities how long a part will last without replacement)”)
Regarding claim 9, The consumable part replacement time calculation method according to claim 8, wherein, in the receiving step, it uses general map information and information with which places where replacement of the consumable part is possible are registered. (Lavie Paragraph 0048: “If the vehicle data collection module has software running on a general purpose computing device such as a mobile phone,”) (Lavie Paragraph 0049: “Sensor that are part of the mobile device can also be considered in-vehicle sensors provided the device is in or attached to the vehicle. These types of sensors can include gyroscopes, accelerometers, altimeters and GPS,”) (Lavie Paragraph 0128: “In embodiments, additional information is in the database or in a second linked database. This additional information includes an inventory of parts and their location. In addition it may include the workload or backlog of various service technicians and their availability to perform the predicted maintenance or service that need to be done. Additional functionality of the accident review module in embodiments can do one or more of determining the availability of parts, materials and labor and/or request bids for each from providers that have the part/s, materials or time. The review module, in some embodiments will schedule delivery of the parts and service labor based on the availability.”) (Note: The review module will schedule service labor based on the availability in order to determine a place where a consumable part can be registered in advance.)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 7:16AM-4:46PM M, 6:30AM-5:00PM T-W, 7:30AM-5:00PM Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3921. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.J.H./Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights