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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 7, 11 have been amended (the semi-colon and commas preceding the amendments received on 12/2/2025 should be underlined as they are new (See MPEP § 714)).
Claims 10, 13 have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the semi-colon in limitation 5 preceding the amendment received on 12/2/2025 should either be a comma, removed, or the amendment should be its own limitation starting on a new line. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “and” after the second to last limitation should not be the first term in the last limitation, but the last term in the second to last limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 9, 11, 12, 14, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 7, 11 recite the limitation "the selection condition input by automobile repair personnel" in last limitation of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a transitory wave can be considered to be a computer readable storage medium. As such, since the specification has failed to exclude transitory signals as being mediums a rejection under 35 USC 101 has been provided. In order to overcome the rejection, the Examiner suggests amending the claims to disclose that the computer readable medium is non-transitory.
Claims 1 – 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
acquiring the parameter test value of an automobile accessory, and sending the parameter test value of the automobile accessory,
sending the parameter test value
determining a target keyword corresponding to a faulty automobile accessory according to the parameter test value and a parameter standard value of the automobile accessory, and sending the target keyword corresponding to the faulty automobile accessory
receiving the target keyword, and sending the target keyword
receiving the target keyword, and sending the target keyword, upon receiving the target keyword, displays the target keyword to the user so as to allow the user to perform an editing operation on the target keyword
receiving the target keyword, determining, according to the target keyword, accessory information and accessory quote of a target automobile accessory, and sending the accessory information and the accessory quote, the target automobile accessory being an automobile accessory for replacing the faulty automobile accessory
displaying the accessory information and the accessory quote, prioritizing multiple target automobile accessories according to the accessory information, the accessory quote, the selection conditions input by automobile repair personnel, and historical maintenance information, and then displays the prioritized target automobile accessories
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of repair quote estimation that is based on the collection and comparison of information and, based on a rule(s), identify options, which corresponds to “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, e.g., having a user manually collect information regarding an asset that is having an issue, look-up stored information about the issue and comparing the collected and stored information, and, based on a match, and identify and provide price estimates, as well as organizing (prioritizing) information.
The limitations of:
acquiring the parameter test value of an automobile accessory, and sending the parameter test value of the automobile accessory,
sending the parameter test value
determining a target keyword corresponding to a faulty automobile accessory according to the parameter test value and a parameter standard value of the automobile accessory, and sending the target keyword corresponding to the faulty automobile accessory
receiving the target keyword, and sending the target keyword
receiving the target keyword, and sending the target keyword, upon receiving the target keyword, displays the target keyword to the user so as to allow the user to perform an editing operation on the target keyword
receiving the target keyword, determining, according to the target keyword, accessory information and accessory quote of a target automobile accessory, and sending the accessory information and the accessory quote, the target automobile accessory being an automobile accessory for replacing the faulty automobile accessory
displaying the accessory information and the accessory quote, prioritizing multiple target automobile accessories according to the accessory information, the accessory quote, the selection conditions input by automobile repair personnel, and historical maintenance information, and then displays the prioritized target automobile accessories
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic big data platform, and generic servers. That is, other than reciting a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic big data platform, and generic servers nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic big data platform, and generic servers in the context of this claim encompasses a human looking up quotes for servicing a vehicle. Further, the applicant admits on ¶ 4 that it is known that the invention can, indeed, be performed by humans and that the goal of the invention is to utilize computers in order to speed up this manual process. In other words, the claimed invention is reciting generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea for the benefits that the technology provides, i.e. faster, more efficient, and etc. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic big data platform, and generic servers, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic big data platform, and generic servers to communicate, store, and display information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind and/or pen and paper, i.e. collecting vehicle information and comparing the vehicle information against known vehicle information and, based on a rule (match), identify and provide pricing information, as well as organizing (prioritizing) information. The generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic big data platform, and generic servers in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic big data platform, and generic servers can perform the insignificant extra solution steps of communicating, storing, and displaying information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) while also reciting that the a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic big data platform, and generic servers are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper; "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic big data platform, and generic servers.
Accordingly, 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic big data platform, and generic servers to perform the steps of:
acquiring the parameter test value of an automobile accessory, and sending the parameter test value of the automobile accessory,
sending the parameter test value
determining a target keyword corresponding to a faulty automobile accessory according to the parameter test value and a parameter standard value of the automobile accessory, and sending the target keyword corresponding to the faulty automobile accessory
receiving the target keyword, and sending the target keyword
receiving the target keyword, and sending the target keyword, upon receiving the target keyword, displays the target keyword to the user so as to allow the user to perform an editing operation on the target keyword
receiving the target keyword, determining, according to the target keyword, accessory information and accessory quote of a target automobile accessory, and sending the accessory information and the accessory quote, the target automobile accessory being an automobile accessory for replacing the faulty automobile accessory
displaying the accessory information and the accessory quote, prioritizing multiple target automobile accessories according to the accessory information, the accessory quote, the selection conditions input by automobile repair personnel, and historical maintenance information, and then displays the prioritized target automobile accessories
amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally:
Claims 2, 3 are directed towards reciting generic technology at a high level of generality to perform the extra-solution activity of storing information, as well as human activities that lead to providing a quote based on the collection and comparison of keywords that are associated and can be used to diagnose a vehicle issue and determining a corresponding quote for resolving the issue.
Claim 4 is directed towards reciting generic technology at a high level of generality to perform the extra-solution activity of communicating information over generic HTTP, as well as human activities that lead to providing a quote based on the collection and comparison of keywords that are associated and can be used to diagnose a vehicle issue and determining a corresponding quote for resolving the issue.
Claim 5 is directed towards reciting generic technology at a high level of generality to perform the extra-solution activity of communicating information via a message queue, as well as human activities that lead to providing a quote based on the collection and comparison of keywords that are associated and can be used to diagnose a vehicle issue and determining a corresponding quote for resolving the issue.
Claim 6 is directed towards human activities that lead to providing a quote based on the collection and comparison of keywords that are associated and can be used to diagnose a vehicle issue and determining a corresponding quote for resolving the issue, as well as the collecting and comparing values to assist with this process.
The remaining claims recite similar subject matter that has already been discussed above.
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for providing a price quote for servicing a vehicle. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 (or as subject to pre-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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 9, 11, 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Johnson et al. (US PGPub 2015/0066781 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Johnson discloses a quote display method for a faulty automobile accessory, being applied to a quote display system for a faulty automobile accessory, wherein the quote display system for a faulty automobile accessory comprises an automobile repair terminal for interacting with a user and displaying data, a test server for sending a parameter test value, a big data platform for determining a faulty automobile accessory, and a quote server for determining accessory information and accessory quote; the method comprising:
(NOTE: “server” has been interpreted with the following definition: “a software program or a computer that provides services to other software programs or other computer”. The specification does not provide a specific definition of how “server” should be interpreted, i.e. whether the test server and quote server are two completely different and separate computer devices or two software programs residing in the same computer.)
the automobile repair terminal acquiring a parameter test value of an automobile accessory, and sending the parameter test value of the automobile accessory to the test server (¶ 31, 32, 34, 39, 43, 47, 60, 72 wherein the client device (automobile repair terminal) acquires vehicle status/condition/DTC information and sends the information to a computer device/server (test server));
the test server sending the parameter test value to the big data platform (¶ 35, 73, 74 wherein the computing device/server (test server) sends the received vehicle information to a vehicle repair database (big data platform));
the big data platform determining a target keyword corresponding to a faulty automobile accessory according to the parameter test value and a parameter standard value of the automobile accessory, and sending the target keyword corresponding to the faulty automobile accessory to the test server (¶ 35, 38, 42, 43, 65 73, 74 wherein the vehicle repair database (big data platform) determines a target keyword that corresponds with a DTC or found within the description or request received from the client device, e.g., symptom description, vehicle identification information, vehicle mileage, vehicle usage, vehicle type, and etc., to match it against its repository of information to identify the issue and solution and provides its results back to the computing device (test server));
the test server receiving the target keyword, and sending the target keyword to the automobile repair terminal (Fig. 3A, 3B, 4A; ¶ 54, 60, 64, 65, 72, 73, 74 wherein the service writer, utilizing their computing device, transmits vehicle information (automobile repair terminal) to the central computing device (test server) to communicate with the vehicle repair database (big data platform) to retrieve information associated with a reported vehicle issue, diagnostic information (which also encompasses DTC’s), provided by the service writer via the vehicle information, and provides back to the service writer, on their computing device via the central computing device, diagnostic results, servicing information, and the like);
In regards to:
the automobile repair terminal receiving the target keyword, and sending the target keyword to the quote server; and the automobile repair terminal, upon receiving the target keyword, displays the target keyword to the user so as to allow the user to perform an editing operation on the target keyword;
the quote server receiving the target keyword, determining, according to the target keyword, accessory information and accessory quote of a target automobile accessory, and sending the accessory information and the accessory quote to the automobile repair terminal, the target automobile accessory being an automobile accessory for replacing the faulty automobile accessory
(Fig. 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B; ¶ 26, 54, 60, 64, 65, 72, 73, 74, 78, 79, 81, 82, 88, 90 wherein after the service writer receives information regarding issues that the particular vehicle may have and/or currently has, the service writer can select one or more issues and resolutions for the vehicle, via their computing device (automobile repair terminal), which is communicated back to the central computing device (quote server) in order for the central computing device to retrieve pricing information, e.g., shipping information, part(s) availability, part pricing, labor pricing, competitor pricing, and etc.;
In light of ¶ 86 of the applicant’s specification wherein the editing includes, for example, a user supplementing the information provided to the user, see ¶ 63 wherein the user can supplement the provided information with vehicle owner’s comments; ¶ 65, 66 wherein the user can supplement the provided information with additional services based on the top most frequently reported failures for the vehicle); and
the automobile repair terminal displaying the accessory information and the accessory quote, the automobile repair terminal prioritizes multiple target automobile accessories according to the accessory information, the accessory quote, the selection conditions input by automobile repair personnel, and historical maintenance information, and then displays the prioritized target automobile accessories (Fig. 3A, 3B, 4B; ¶ 27, 49, 88 wherein the pricing information is provided to the service writer and displayed on their computing device (automobile repair terminal) so that the information can be conveyed to a vehicle owner, which, in turn, allows the service writer to receive approval to perform the work by the vehicle owner (if the vehicle owner chooses to have the work done or allow the service writer write up the quote and indicate that the vehicle owner wishes to have the work done at a future point in time);
¶ 27, 49, 65, 66, 78, 81, 88 wherein the system provides a prioritized list of vehicle part repairs/servicing according to the part, the cost, selections made by an automobile repair personnel, and historical maintenance information. As a non-limiting example, the system presents the prioritized list of repairs/servicing that should be performed based on the part(s) that should be repair/serviced, the cost for the part/repair/service, selection(s) made by personnel (e.g., selecting repair/services that should be performed, estimates, and etc., as well as whether personnel determine that the repair/service is required), and historical maintenance corresponding to the vehicle).
In regards to claim 2, Johnson discloses the quote display method according to claim 1, wherein the big data platform pre-stores a first correspondence between the automobile accessory and a corresponding keyword;
the big data platform determining a target keyword corresponding to a faulty automobile accessory according to the parameter test value and a parameter standard value of the automobile accessory comprises:
the big data platform determining a faulty automobile accessory according to the parameter test value and the parameter standard value of the automobile accessory; and
the big data platform determining the target keyword according to the faulty automobile accessory and the first correspondence
(¶ 20, 24, 25, 38, 42, 49, 50, 63, 65, 74, 96 wherein the system stores information regarding a correspondence between the automobile accessory and a keyword that can be used to diagnose the accessory to determine if a fault exists and allow for the system to diagnose the vehicle against a test value (threshold values, e.g., mileage) and a parameter standard to determine the existence of a fault and provides this information back to the service writer device to then convey to the vehicle owner, as was discussed above).
In regards to claim 3, Johnson discloses the quote display method according to claim 1, wherein the quote server pre-stores a keyword and a second correspondence between corresponding accessory information and accessory quote;
the quote server receiving the target keyword, and determining, according to the target keyword, accessory information and accessory quote of a target automobile accessory comprises:
the quote server receiving the target keyword, and determining accessory information and accessory quote of the target automobile accessory according to the target keyword and the second correspondence
(¶ 20, 24, 25, 26, 38, 42, 49, 50, 54, 60, 63, 64, 65, 72, 73, 74, 78, 79, 81, 82, 88, 90, 96 wherein the system stores keywords and correspondences between the vehicle accessory and compares it against service writer provided information to determine whether servicing is needed for the vehicle and/or whether the future vehicle service has arrived and provides the quote to the service writer).
In regards to claim 5, Johnson discloses the quote display method according to claim 1, wherein
the automobile repair terminal communicates with the quote server via a message queue;
the automobile repair terminal receiving the target keyword, and sending the target keyword to the quote server comprises:
the automobile repair terminal receiving the target keyword, and importing the target keyword into a parameter of an accessory inquiry and quote interface of the quote server via a message queue
(¶ 20, 24, 25, 26, 38, 42, 49, 50, 54, 60, 63, 64, 65, 72, 73, 74, 78, 79, 81, 82, 88, 90, 96 wherein the system stores keywords and correspondences between the vehicle accessory and compares it against service writer provided information to determine whether servicing is needed for the vehicle and/or whether the future vehicle service has arrived and provides the quote to the service writer. The Examiner asserts that this communication is equivalent to a message queue as communication between the service writer and system and based on a first entity first sending a message, the second entity awaiting the message, the second entity reviewing the message, the second entity responding to the message, the first entity awaiting the message, the first entity reviewing the message, and so forth.).
In regards to claim 6, Johnson discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the big data platform determining a target keyword corresponding to a faulty automobile accessory according to the parameter test value and a parameter standard value of the automobile accessory comprises:
the big data platform determining a parameter standard value corresponding to each parameter test value in multiple parameter test values according to the multiple parameter test values of the automobile accessory; and
if a difference value between any parameter test value and a corresponding parameter standard value is outside a preset threshold range, then the automobile accessory being determined as the faulty automobile accessory and a keyword corresponding to the automobile accessory being determined as the target keyword
(¶ 20, 24, 25, 38, 42, 49, 50, 63, 65, 74, 96 wherein the system stores information regarding a correspondence between the automobile accessory and a keyword that can be used to diagnose the accessory to determine if a fault exists and allow for the system to diagnose the vehicle against a test value (threshold values, e.g., mileage) and a parameter standard to determine the existence of a fault and provides this information back to the service writer device to then convey to the vehicle owner, as was discussed above. This process is performed for one or more issues each having their particular threshold value, e.g., mileage threshold, vehicle type threshold, trend thresholds, time threshold, and so forth.).
In regards to claim 7, Johnson discloses (Claim 7) a quote display method for a faulty automobile accessory, being applied to an automobile repair terminal for a quote display system of a faulty automobile accessory, wherein the quote display system for a faulty automobile accessory comprises an automobile repair terminal for interacting with a user and displaying data, a test server for sending a parameter test value, a big data platform for determining a faulty automobile accessory, and a quote server for determining accessory information and accessory quote; (Claim 12) the method comprising; a computer-readable storage medium, wherein at least one executable instruction is stored in the storage medium, and when the executable instruction runs on an electronic device, the executable instruction causes the electronic device to execute an operation of the quote display method for a faulty automobile accessory according to claim 7:
(NOTE: “server” has been interpreted with the following definition: “a software program or a computer that provides services to other software programs or other computer”. The specification does not provide a specific definition of how “server” should be interpreted, i.e. whether the test server and quote server are two completely different and separate computer devices or two software programs residing in the same computer.)
acquiring the parameter test value of an automobile accessory, and sending the parameter test value of the automobile accessory to the test server for the test server to send the parameter test value to the big data platform, the big data platform determining a target keyword corresponding to a faulty automobile accessory according to the parameter test value and a parameter standard value of the automobile accessory and sending the target keyword corresponding to the faulty automobile accessory to the test server, and the test server receiving the target keyword (¶ 31, 32, 34, 39, 43, 47, 60, 72 wherein the client device (automobile repair terminal) acquires vehicle status/condition/DTC information and sends the information to a computer device/server (test server);
¶ 35, 73, 74 wherein the computing device/server (test server) sends the received vehicle information to a vehicle repair database (big data platform);
¶ 35, 38, 42, 43, 65 73, 74 wherein the vehicle repair database (big data platform) determines a target keyword that corresponds with a DTC or found within the description or request received from the client device, e.g., symptom description, vehicle identification information, vehicle mileage, vehicle usage, vehicle type, and etc., to match it against its repository of information to identify the issue and solution and provides its results back to the computing device (test server);
Fig. 3A, 3B, 4A; ¶ 54, 60, 64, 65, 72, 73, 74 wherein the service writer, utilizing their computing device, transmits vehicle information (automobile repair terminal) to the central computing device (test server) to communicate with the vehicle repair database (big data platform) to retrieve information associated with a reported vehicle issue, diagnostic information (which also encompasses DTC’s), provided by the service writer via the vehicle information, and provides back to the service writer, on their computing device via the central computing device, diagnostic results, servicing information, and the like);
In regards to:
receiving the target keyword sent by the test server, and sending the target keyword to the quote server for the quote server to determine the accessory information and the accessory quote of the target automobile accessory according to the target keyword, upon receiving the target keyword, displaying the target keyword to the user so as to allow the user to perform an editing operation on the target keyword;;
receiving the accessory information and accessory quote sent by the quote server
(Fig. 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B; ¶ 26, 54, 60, 64, 65, 72, 73, 74, 78, 79, 81, 82, 88, 90 wherein after the service writer receives information regarding issues that the particular vehicle may have and/or currently has, the service writer can select one or more issues and resolutions for the vehicle, via their computing device (automobile repair terminal), which is communicated back to the central computing device (quote server) in order for the central computing device to retrieve pricing information, e.g., shipping information, part(s) availability, part pricing, labor pricing, competitor pricing, and etc.;
In light of ¶ 86 of the applicant’s specification wherein the editing includes, for example, a user supplementing the information provided to the user, see ¶ 63 wherein the user can supplement the provided information with vehicle owner’s comments; ¶ 65, 66 wherein the user can supplement the provided information with additional services based on the top most frequently reported failures for the vehicle); and
displaying the accessory information and accessory quote, prioritizing multiple target automobile accessories according to the accessory information, the accessory quote, the selection conditions input by automobile repair personnel, and historical maintenance information, and then displays the prioritized target automobile accessories (Fig. 3A, 3B, 4B; ¶ 27, 49, 88 wherein the pricing information is provided to the service writer and displayed on their computing device (automobile repair terminal) so that the information can be conveyed to a vehicle owner, which, in turn, allows the service writer to receive approval to perform the work by the vehicle owner (if the vehicle owner chooses to have the work done or allow the service writer write up the quote and indicate that the vehicle owner wishes to have the work done at a future point in time);
¶ 27, 49, 65, 66, 78, 81, 88 wherein the system provides a prioritized list of vehicle part repairs/servicing according to the part, the cost, selections made by an automobile repair personnel, and historical maintenance information. As a non-limiting example, the system presents the prioritized list of repairs/servicing that should be performed based on the part(s) that should be repair/serviced, the cost for the part/repair/service, selection(s) made by personnel (e.g., selecting repair/services that should be performed, estimates, and etc., as well as whether personnel determine that the repair/service is required), and historical maintenance corresponding to the vehicle).
In regards to claim 9, Johnson discloses the quote display method according to claim 7, wherein
the automobile repair terminal communicates with the quote server via a message queue;
the sending the target keyword to the quote server comprises:
sending the target keyword to the quote server via the message queue
(¶ 20, 24, 25, 26, 38, 42, 49, 50, 54, 60, 63, 64, 65, 72, 73, 74, 78, 79, 81, 82, 88, 90, 96 wherein the system stores keywords and correspondences between the vehicle accessory and compares it against service writer provided information to determine whether servicing is needed for the vehicle and/or whether the future vehicle service has arrived and provides the quote to the service writer. The Examiner asserts that this communication is equivalent to a message queue as communication between the service writer and system and based on a first entity first sending a message, the second entity awaiting the message, the second entity reviewing the message, the second entity responding to the message, the first entity awaiting the message, the first entity reviewing the message, and so forth.).
In regards to claim 11, Johnson discloses an electronic device, comprising: a processor, a memory, a communication interface, and a communication bus, wherein the processor, the memory, and the communication interface complete mutual communication through the communication bus (¶ 33);
the memory is used for storing at least one executable instruction that causes the processor to perform the following method (¶ 33):
(NOTE: “server” has been interpreted with the following definition: “a software program or a computer that provides services to other software programs or other computer”. The specification does not provide a specific definition of how “server” should be interpreted, i.e. whether the test server and quote server are two completely different and separate computer devices or two software programs residing in the same computer.)
acquiring a parameter test value of an automobile accessory, and sending the parameter test value of the automobile accessory to a test server for the test server to send the parameter test value to a big data platform, the big data platform determining a target keyword corresponding to a faulty automobile accessory according to the parameter test value and a parameter standard value of the automobile accessory and sending the target keyword corresponding to the faulty automobile accessory to the test server, and the test server receiving the target keyword (¶ 31, 32, 34, 39, 43, 47, 60, 72 wherein the client device (automobile repair terminal) acquires vehicle status/condition/DTC information and sends the information to a computer device/server (test server);
¶ 35, 73, 74 wherein the computing device/server (test server) sends the received vehicle information to a vehicle repair database (big data platform);
¶ 35, 38, 42, 43, 65 73, 74 wherein the vehicle repair database (big data platform) determines a target keyword that corresponds with a DTC or found within the description or request received from the client device, e.g., symptom description, vehicle identification information, vehicle mileage, vehicle usage, vehicle type, and etc., to match it against its repository of information to identify the issue and solution and provides its results back to the computing device (test server);
Fig. 3A, 3B, 4A; ¶ 54, 60, 64, 65, 72, 73, 74 wherein the service writer, utilizing their computing device, transmits vehicle information (automobile repair terminal) to the central computing device (test server) to communicate with the vehicle repair database (big data platform) to retrieve information associated with a reported vehicle issue, diagnostic information (which also encompasses DTC’s), provided by the service writer via the vehicle information, and provides back to the service writer, on their computing device via the central computing device, diagnostic results, servicing information, and the like);
In regards to:
receiving the target keyword sent by the test server, and sending the target keyword to a quote server for the quote server to determine the accessory information about and the accessory quote of the target automobile accessory according to the target keyword, upon receiving the target keyword, displaying the target keyword to the user so as to allow the user to perform an editing operation on the target keyword;;
receiving the accessory information and accessory quote sent by the quote server
(Fig. 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B; ¶ 26, 54, 60, 64, 65, 72, 73, 74, 78, 79, 81, 82, 88, 90 wherein after the service writer receives information regarding issues that the particular vehicle may have and/or currently has, the service writer can select one or more issues and resolutions for the vehicle, via their computing device (automobile repair terminal), which is communicated back to the central computing device (quote server) in order for the central computing device to retrieve pricing information, e.g., shipping information, part(s) availability, part pricing, labor pricing, competitor pricing, and etc.;
In light of ¶ 86 of the applicant’s specification wherein the editing includes, for example, a user supplementing the information provided to the user, see ¶ 63 wherein the user can supplement the provided information with vehicle owner’s comments; ¶ 65, 66 wherein the user can supplement the provided information with additional services based on the top most frequently reported failures for the vehicle); and
displaying the accessory information and accessory quote, prioritizing multiple target automobile accessories according to the accessory information, the accessory quote, the selection conditions input by automobile repair personnel, and historical maintenance information, and then displays the prioritized target automobile accessories (Fig. 3A, 3B, 4B; ¶ 27, 49, 88 wherein the pricing information is provided to the service writer and displayed on their computing device (automobile repair terminal) so that the information can be conveyed to a vehicle owner, which, in turn, allows the service writer to receive approval to perform the work by the vehicle owner (if the vehicle owner chooses to have the work done or allow the service writer write up the quote and indicate that the vehicle owner wishes to have the work done at a future point in time);
¶ 27, 49, 65, 66, 78, 81, 88 wherein the system provides a prioritized list of vehicle part repairs/servicing according to the part, the cost, selections made by an automobile repair personnel, and historical maintenance information. As a non-limiting example, the system presents the prioritized list of repairs/servicing that should be performed based on the part(s) that should be repair/serviced, the cost for the part/repair/service, selection(s) made by personnel (e.g., selecting repair/services that should be performed, estimates, and etc., as well as whether personnel determine that the repair/service is required), and historical maintenance corresponding to the vehicle).
In regards to claim 15, Johnson discloses the electronic device according to claim 11, wherein
the automobile repair terminal communicates with the quote server via a message queue;
the sending the target keyword to the quote server comprises:
sending the target keyword to the quote server via the message queue
(¶ 20, 24, 25, 26, 38, 42, 49, 50, 54, 60, 63, 64, 65, 72, 73, 74, 78, 79, 81, 82, 88, 90, 96 wherein the system stores keywords and correspondences between the vehicle accessory and compares it against service writer provided information to determine whether servicing is needed for the vehicle and/or whether the future vehicle service has arrived and provides the quote to the service writer. The Examiner asserts that this communication is equivalent to a message queue as communication between the service writer and system and based on a first entity first sending a message, the second entity awaiting the message, the second entity reviewing the message, the second entity responding to the message, the first entity awaiting the message, the first entity reviewing the message, and so forth.).
______________________________________________________________________
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 (or as subject to pre-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.
Claims 4, 8, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US PGPub 2015/0066781 A1) in view of Marshall (HTTP Made Really Easy).
In regards to claim 4, Johnson discloses the quote display method according to claim 1, wherein
the automobile repair terminal communicates with the quote server […];
the automobile repair terminal receiving the target keyword, and sending the target keyword to the quote server comprises:
the automobile repair terminal receiving the target keyword, and importing the target keyword into a parameter of an accessory inquiry and quote interface of the quote server […]
(¶ 20, 24, 25, 26, 38, 42, 49, 50, 54, 60, 63, 64, 65, 72, 73, 74, 78, 79, 81, 82, 88, 90, 96 wherein the system stores keywords and correspondences between the vehicle accessory and compares it against service writer provided information to determine whether servicing is needed for the vehicle and/or whether the future vehicle service has arrived and provides the quote to the service writer).
Johnson discloses a system and method for providing a user with a quote and prognosis for a vehicle issue automatically without having the user to manually calculate the cost for repair by communicating with a central system (server) using their computing device over a communication network. Although Johnson discloses communicating over a communication network and the system looking upon information of other repair shops for price comparison, as well as identifying repair shops within a geographical range (¶ 81), Johnson fails to explicitly disclose whether it is well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of communication networks to utilize an HTTP protocol.
To be more specific, Johnson fails to explicitly disclose:
the automobile repair terminal communicates with the quote server via an HTTP protocol;
the automobile repair terminal receiving the target keyword, and importing the target keyword into a parameter of an accessory inquiry and quote interface of the quote server via the HTTP protocol
However, Marshall teaches that HTTP is a notoriously old and well-known communication technique between a client device and server. Marshall teaches that the protocol allows for the delivery of various forms of information between devices over a communication network and allows for back-and-forth communication and responses to be performed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate HTTP into the system and method of Johnson as Johnson utilizes a request and response messaging system to allow the service writer to transmit a request for diagnostics and quotes and for the server to receive and respond to these requests in a well-known and established manner.
(For support see: Page 1, 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the request and response communication network based system of Johnson the ability of utilizing HTTP protocol communication, as taught by Marshall, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that HTTP is a notoriously old and well-known communication protocol between client devices and servers and is a tried and true communication protocol to allow for requests and responses to be communicated between client devices and servers.
In regards to claim 8, Johnson discloses the quote display method according to claim 7, wherein
the automobile repair terminal communicates with the quote server […];
the sending the target keyword to the quote server comprises:
sending the target keyword to the quote server […]
(¶ 20, 24, 25, 26, 38, 42, 49, 50, 54, 60, 63, 64, 65, 72, 73, 74, 78, 79, 81, 82, 88, 90, 96 wherein the system stores keywords and correspondences between the vehicle accessory and compares it against service writer provided information to determine whether servicing is needed for the vehicle and/or whether the future vehicle service has arrived and provides the quote to the service writer).
Johnson discloses a system and method for providing a user with a quote and prognosis for a vehicle issue automatically without having the user to manually calculate the cost for repair by communicating with a central system (server) using their computing device over a communication network. Although Johnson discloses communicating over a communication network and the system looking upon information of other repair shops for price comparison, as well as identifying repair shops within a geographical range (¶ 81), Johnson fails to explicitly disclose whether it is well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of communication networks to utilize an HTTP protocol.
To be more specific, Johnson fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the automobile repair terminal communicates with the quote server via an HTTP protocol;
sending the target keyword to the quote server through the HTTP protocol.
However, Marshall teaches that HTTP is a notoriously old and well-known communication technique between a client device and server. Marshall teaches that the protocol allows for the delivery of various forms of information between devices over a communication network and allows for back-and-forth communication and responses to be performed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate HTTP into the system and method of Johnson as Johnson utilizes a request and response messaging system to allow the service writer to transmit a request for diagnostics and quotes and for the server to receive and respond to these requests in a well-known and established manner.
(For support see: Page 1, 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the request and response communication network based system of Johnson the ability of utilizing HTTP protocol communication, as taught by Marshall, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that HTTP is a notoriously old and well-known communication protocol between client devices and servers and is a tried and true communication protocol to allow for requests and responses to be communicated between client devices and servers.
In regards to claim 14, Johnson discloses the electronic device according to claim 11, wherein
the automobile repair terminal communicates with the quote server […];
the sending the target keyword to the quote server comprises:
sending the target keyword to the quote server […]
(¶ 20, 24, 25, 26, 38, 42, 49, 50, 54, 60, 63, 64, 65, 72, 73, 74, 78, 79, 81, 82, 88, 90, 96 wherein the system stores keywords and correspondences between the vehicle accessory and compares it against service writer provided information to determine whether servicing is needed for the vehicle and/or whether the future vehicle service has arrived and provides the quote to the service writer).
Johnson discloses a system and method for providing a user with a quote and prognosis for a vehicle issue automatically without having the user to manually calculate the cost for repair by communicating with a central system (server) using their computing device over a communication network. Although Johnson discloses communicating over a communication network and the system looking upon information of other repair shops for price comparison, as well as identifying repair shops within a geographical range (¶ 81), Johnson fails to explicitly disclose whether it is well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of communication networks to utilize an HTTP protocol.
To be more specific, Johnson fails to explicitly disclose:
the automobile repair terminal communicates with the quote server via an HTTP protocol;
sending the target keyword to the quote server through the HTTP protocol
However, Marshall teaches that HTTP is a notoriously old and well-known communication technique between a client device and server. Marshall teaches that the protocol allows for the delivery of various forms of information between devices over a communication network and allows for back-and-forth communication and responses to be performed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate HTTP into the system and method of Johnson as Johnson utilizes a request and response messaging system to allow the service writer to transmit a request for diagnostics and quotes and for the server to receive and respond to these requests in a well-known and established manner.
(For support see: Page 1, 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the request and response communication network based system of Johnson the ability of utilizing HTTP protocol communication, as taught by Marshall, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that HTTP is a notoriously old and well-known communication protocol between client devices and servers and is a tried and true communication protocol to allow for requests and responses to be communicated between client devices and servers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objection
The objection to the claims has been withdrawn due to amendments.
New objections have been provided due to amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 101
The rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained for reciting transitory signals.
The Examiner asserts that no arguments or amendments were provided as to why the rejection should be withdrawn.
The rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained for being directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner asserts that reciting software to provide a quotation is not an improvement to any technology, resolving an issue that arose in technology, or deeply rooted in technology, but reciting generic technology at a high level of generality to perform the extra-solution activity of retrieving and display information, in this case, a quote, which is further based on collecting and comparing information. The Examiner asserts that these are activities that can be performed by humans as a human can be provided information about a service that is needed, looking up pricing information or speaking with another human regarding pricing, and providing or writing down the price. The Examiner asserts that the applicant’s “improvements” do not rise to the same level as the graphical user interface (GUI) improvements of CoreWireless or the database improvements of Enfish, but is more analogous to Electric Power Group.
The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is similar to the analysis and decision of Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., where the CAFC stated that, “the claims do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology. The claims, defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result.” Further still, as was further discussed in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., “there is a critical difference between patenting a particular concrete solution to a problem and attempting to patent the abstract idea of a solution to the problem in general.”
Further, the type of information that is being managed is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a non-abstract idea or to demonstrate that the invention is “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., the claimed invention is simply limiting the claims to a particular environment and is, without more, insufficient to transform them into a patent-eligible applications of the abstract idea at their core. The Examiner asserts that the claims are directed towards the type of information and selecting information for collection, analysis, and display, which do nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes. The claims to not require a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it and, accordingly, “do not invoke any assertedly inventive programming”, but “merely require the selection and manipulation of information—to provide a “humanly comprehensible” amount of information useful for users.” The specification does not disclose how the desired result is achieved other than simply providing a high level of explanation and relying on the general use of generic devices, i.e. the claims “do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display, or even a ‘non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,’ but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions using a generic computing device, display, and network. … Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. … We have repeatedly held that invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably invention are ‘insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application’ of an abstract idea.”
Additionally, reciting a plurality of generic computing devices, as recited in the claimed invention, is insufficient to overcoming the rejection because the claimed invention is only reciting a plurality of generic computing devices at a high level of generality to perform the extra-solution activity of communicating and displaying information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind and/or pen and paper, i.e. collecting vehicle information and comparing the vehicle information against known vehicle information and, based on a rule (match), identify and provide pricing information. Moreover, the prioritization of the information is not directed towards an improvement to how the technology can more efficiently organize information or improving how a user can more effectively interact with a GUI (Example 37), but directed towards generic organization of information based on a rule(s), parameters, or the like. The prioritization is nothing more than a human writing down information in a particular order based on a sorting rule and not improving how a computer can more efficiently manage information or its functionality.
Finally, the applicant admits on ¶ 4 that it is known that the invention can, indeed, be performed by humans and that the goal of the invention is to utilize computers in order to speed up this manual process. In other words, the claimed invention is reciting generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea for the benefits that the technology provides, i.e. faster, more efficient, and etc. The Examiner asserts that there is no improvement “human-user interaction” because reciting generic computing technology to communicate and display information so that a huma can review the information and provide some input is not directed towards a technological improvement, but, again, reciting generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea for the benefits that the technology provides, i.e. faster, more efficient, and etc. As stated in the rejection and as admitted by the applicant on ¶ 4, the claimed invention can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, e.g., having a user manually collect information regarding an asset that is having an issue, look-up stored information about the issue and comparing the collected and stored information, and, based on a match, and identify and provide price estimates, as well as organizing (prioritizing) information.
Rejection under 35 USC 102/103
The Examiner asserts that the applicant’s arguments are directed towards newly amended limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the newly submitted amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the applicant’s arguments.
Pertinent Arguments
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Johnson does not determine which accessory is faulty based on actual sensor detection data.”;
“Johnson does not compare a current parameter test value of an accessory with a standard value, does not determine which specific part is faulty based on numerical deviation, and does not generate a keyword corresponding to a faulty accessory for quotation based on such numerical deviation.”;
“…the present application "determines based on real-time detection results," which is an engineering diagnosis based on physical value comparison.”
“the automobile repair terminal displays the keyword and allows the user to perform editing/correction/supplementation. The edited keyword may be used for the subsequent quotation retrieval process. This is an explicit human-machine collaboration step intended to correct potential misjudgment in automatic determination, filter detection noise, or supplement semantic information, thereby improving quotation accuracy.”
“However, Johnson does not disclose or suggest that "when a backend generates a diagnostic keyword, the terminal explicitly provides an interface for editing the keyword, and the edited result is used as a parameter for subsequent quote retrieval. " Johnson merely describes that the system provides suggestions or the user selects options, but lacks the procedural details of "system generates keyword [Wingdings font/0xE0] user edits [Wingdings font/0xE0] then sends.”
“[Johnson] does not disclose or describe combining accessory information, quotes, manually input selection conditions, and historical maintenance information into a multi-dimensional ranking algorithm and generating a prioritized list at the terminal side. … rather than the specific terminal-side automated multi-factor prioritization implementation required by the claims.”)
are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Gronsbell et al. (US PGPub 2023/0274587 A1); Perkna et al. (EP 3,914,879 B1); Basir (CA 2742417 A) – which are directed towards vehicle diagnostics and repair systems with the ability to prioritize identified issues
Hanson et al. (US PGPub 2023/0073115 1); Kwansy (US PGPub 2013/0218761 A1) – which are directed towards diagnosing a vehicle and facilitating servicing of the vehicle
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 GERARDO ARAQUE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4:30.
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 Monfeldt can be reached at 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 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.
GERARDO ARAQUE JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/GERARDO ARAQUE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 1/5/2026