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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 4, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Response dated March 4, 2026. Claims 1-18 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated March 4, 2026, Examiner withdraws the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); and maintains the previous prior art rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In contrast to Applicant’s assertions (see Response at p. 11-12), Examiner asserts that Park explicitly discloses that the original holistic characteristic is specific to when the vehicle is first sold. Specifically, [0035] of Park explicitly discloses that “[i]n some embodiments, this includes stored information that contains a history of the particular sensor data since the originally delivery of the vehicle to its first customer. In this way, a complete profile of the vehicle use, maintenance, and accidents may be automatically provided by the telematics unit when requested.” Examiner notes that the context of this part of Park is reciting the way in which the data is obtained from the vehicle based on a user/entity request for a vehicle value report. Because Park explicitly discloses that the original information is based on the original delivery of the vehicle, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
In contrast to Applicant’s arguments (see Response at p. 12), Examiner asserts that the original conditions of the vehicle are specific to when the vehicle is first sold. Specifically, [0035] of Park explicitly discloses that “[i]n some embodiments, this includes stored information that contains a history of the particular sensor data since the originally delivery of the vehicle to its first customer. In this way, a complete profile of the vehicle use, maintenance, and accidents may be automatically provided by the telematics unit when requested.” Examiner notes that the context of this part of Park is reciting the way in which the data is obtained from the vehicle based on a user/entity request for a vehicle value report. Because Park explicitly discloses that the original information is based on the original delivery of the vehicle, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertions (see Response at p. 12-13), Examiner asserts that the establishing of the second wireless connection is responsive to a user request. Specifically, [0012] of Park explicitly teaches that a the establishment of the connection between the vehicle and the diagnostic electronic system of the vehicle is created based on a user request for the vehicle value report. Because the claimed connection is responsive to the user request, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Contradictory to Applicant’s arguments (see Response at p. 13), Examiner asserts that the construction of an updated comparative report comprises an update of the hypothesized holistic characteristic value. Specifically, the report includes holistic characteristic information and relative values thereof which are updated with each report request; see at least Park at [0011], [0036], and [0044]-[0045]. Because the report provides holistic vehicle value information, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, the corresponding rejections are maintained.
Examiner notes that U.S. 2017/0337573, applied in the parent case 16/142,506, is highly relevant based on the new amendments. Additionally, 16/142,506 is being monitored for a potential double patenting issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0108189 (hereinafter, “Park”; previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device having at least one processor and from a user device of a user via a first wireless data connection, a user-initiated request to estimate a current holistic characteristic of a vehicle, wherein the current holistic characteristic is based at least on a first current condition of at least one of a plurality of features of the vehicle (see at least [0012] and [0039]; a purchaser (i.e., user) may request a vehicle value report); and
in response to receiving the user-initiated request (see at least [0012], [0039], and [0044]):
receiving, by the computing device and from the user device via the first wireless data connection, vehicle-specific identifying data of the vehicle (see at least [0012], [0032], and [0039]; the VIN may be used, and the conditions may include, for example, the conditions of the vehicle braking system, and the vehicle engine/transmission. Any report and corresponding conditions after the first telematics-based vehicle value report is issued may be the first/second/etc.);
retrieving, from a database, an original holistic characteristic value as a hypothesized holistic characteristic value of the vehicle specific to the vehicle based on the vehicle-specific identifying data, wherein the original holistic characteristic value represents a value of the vehicle when the vehicle was manufactured or first sold (see at least [0012], [0028], and [0035]; the telematics-based vehicle value report (i.e., holistic characteristic value) which are updated each time a report is created. The original holistic character value of the vehicle may be the value when the vehicle was first delivered to the first owner (i.e., first sold));
storing the original holistic characteristic value as a hypothesized holistic characteristic value of the vehicle (see at least [0012], [0028], and [0035]; the telematics-based vehicle value report (i.e., holistic characteristic value) which are updated each time a report is created. The first report created may be considered the original holistic character value of the vehicle);
determining, by the computing device, a first original condition for the at least one of the plurality of features of the vehicle when the vehicle was manufactured or sold, using the vehicle-specific identifying data (see at least [0012], [0028], and [0035]; conditions for each vehicle feature used in the first telematics based vehicle value report may be considered the first original condition, and the report is based on the VIN (i.e., the vehicle-specific identifying data). The original data may be when the vehicle is first sold);
establishing, by the computing device, a second wireless data connection with an electronic system of the vehicle (see at least [0012]; a wireless data connection is made with the electronic system of the vehicle);
receiving the first current condition for the at least one of the plurality of features of the vehicle from the electronic system of the vehicle via the second wireless data connection (see at least [0012], [0017], [0028], [0035]; multiple different features and corresponding conditions are used for the generation of the report);
comparing, by the computing device, the first original condition and the first current condition for the at least one of the plurality of features of the vehicle (see at least [0012], [0028], and [0035]; changes between when the reports are created are necessarily utilized for updating the vehicle value);
updating the hypothesized holistic characteristic value of the vehicle based on the comparing of the first original condition and the first current condition and the vehicle-specific identifying data to determine a first value for the current holistic characteristic of the vehicle (see at least [0012], [0028], [0035], and the publication generally; the VIN and corresponding report gives the vehicle value of the vehicle. Any report made after the first report may be considered the first value, and the first report may be considered the original report); and
transmitting, responsive to the user-initiated request, the updated holistic characteristic value of the vehicle to the user device (see at least [0012] and [0044]; the report may be presented via a visual display at the user device based on the purchaser requesting the report).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as for claim 1. Additionally, at least [0039]-[0040] discloses a computer (i.e., processor/non-transitory memory).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Park discloses further comprising:
receiving, by the computing device and from the electronic system of the vehicle via the second wireless data connection, a second current condition for at least another one of the plurality of features of the vehicle (see at least [0012], [0017], [0028], [0035]; multiple different features and corresponding conditions are used for the generation of the report).
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Park discloses further comprising:
determining, by the computing device, a second original condition for the at least another one of the plurality of features of the vehicle using the vehicle-specific identifying data (see at least [0012], [0017], [0028], [0035]; multiple different features and corresponding conditions are used for the generation of the report which is based on the VIN (i.e., the vehicle-specific identifying data));
comparing, by the computing device, the second original condition and the second current condition for the at least another one of the plurality of features of the vehicle (see at least [0012], [0028], and [0035]; changes between when the reports are created are necessarily utilized for updating the vehicle value); and
updating the hypothesized holistic characteristic value of the vehicle based on the comparing of the first original condition and the first current condition, the comparing of the second original condition and the second current condition, and the vehicle- specific identifying data to determine a second value for the current holistic characteristic of the vehicle (see at least [0012], [0028], [0035], and the publication generally; the VIN and corresponding report gives the vehicle value of the vehicle. Any report made after the first report may be considered the first value, and the first report may be considered the original report. The original conditions may be considered those used in the first report and all reports thereafter may be considered the current, second current, etc.).
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Park discloses wherein updating the hypothesized holistic characteristic value of the vehicle further comprises:
determining, by the computing device, a quantifiable difference in condition between the first original condition and the first current condition of the at least one of the plurality of features of the vehicle (see at least [0011]-[0012], [0033], and [0043]-[0045]; the data is quantifiable and indicates condition differences); and
determining, by the computing device, a corresponding delta in the hypothesized holistic characteristic value of the vehicle based on the quantifiable difference in the condition (see at least [0012], [0028], [0035], and the publication generally; the VIN and corresponding report gives the vehicle value of the vehicle. Any report made after the first report may be considered the first value, and the first report may be considered the original report, and the values are based on the differences in conditions of various vehicle features).
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-6, 11-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, as applied to independent claims 1, 7, and 13 above, in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0365772 (hereinafter, “Thompson”; previously of record).
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Park does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 1. Thompson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the vehicle-specific identifying data includes an image of the vehicle showing at least one vehicle-specific identifying information (see at least [0027] and [0027]; image data may capture identifiers such as VIN numbers and license plate numbers).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Park with the teachings of Thompson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional input options to users for inputting vehicle identifying information.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses and Thompson teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, Park discloses wherein the at least one vehicle-specific identifying information includes one or more of:
a vehicle identification number (VIN), a vehicle manufacturer or make, a vehicle model, a vehicle manufacture year, a current odometer reading, a vehicle class, a vehicle color, a vehicle type, and a license plate identification (see at least [0039]; VIN).
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 6.
Additional Relevant Art (Previously of Record)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
NPL Document “Vehicle Classification Based on Images from Visible Light and Thermal Cameras” which discusses ways of using image data to identify vehicle types.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights