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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 18/281,465, filed on September 11, 2023. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection dated April 23, 2025, Applicant on August 11, 2025, amended claims 1 and cancelled claims 2 and 3. Claims 1, 4 and 5 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Priority
The Examiner has noted this Application is a National State entry of PCT/JP2022/010249, internationally filed on March 09, 2022 which claims Foreign Priority from to Japanese Application No. JP2021-041069 filed March 15, 2021.
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on June 10, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are acknowledged.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejections of claims 1-5 are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant canceling claims 2 and 3 and amendments to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed August 11, 2025 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed August 11, 2025.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states the Office rejected claims 1-5 as being directed to an abstract idea. In view of the amendments to the claims, the additional elements impose meaningful limitations on the implementation of the abstract idea, and integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as required under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. We ask that the rejection under § 101 be removed.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, general purpose computer elements/structure, similar to the claimed inventions system, used to apply a judicial exception, by use of instruction implemented on a computer, has not been found by the courts to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Examiner maintains the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claims constitute methods based on commercial interactions, as well as, methods that mimic human thought processes that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper, such as observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion. Applicant has not made any persuasive argument that would alter this analysis. For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1 and 4 are directed towards an apparatus and claim 5 is directed towards a system, both of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite calculating future order quantity of vehicle parts.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Specifically, calculating an average demand quantity of the predetermined parts for a predetermined period based on a result of a past order quantity of the predetermined parts; acquiring vehicle information of each of the plurality of vehicles for the predetermined period, the vehicle information being transmitted from an in-vehicle apparatus mounted in each of the plurality of vehicles; calculating an increase or decrease rate of a use frequency, an increase or decrease rate of a traveling time, and an increase or decrease rate of a number of occurrences of sudden braking of the plurality of vehicles between a first predetermined period and a second predetermined period based on the vehicle information, the first predetermined period and the second predetermined period being consecutive periods; calculating an expected demand by adding the average demand quantity, a quantity obtained by multiplying the average demand quantity by the increase or decrease rate of the use frequency, a quantity obtained by multiplying the average demand quantity by the increase or decrease rate of the traveling time, and a quantity obtained by multiplying the average demand quantity by the increase or decrease rate of the number of occurrences of sudden braking; calculating a future order quantity of the predetermined parts in the predetermined area based on the expected demand constitutes methods based on commercial interactions, as well as, methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of an apparatus comprising a processor coupled to memory and an external apparatus does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 5 recite certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites transmitting the future order quantity to an external apparatus, which are limitations considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising a processor and memory coupled to the processor and an external apparatus at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and therefore is directed to an abstract idea. The system comprising an apparatus according to claim 1 and an in-vehicle apparatus mounted in each of the plurality of vehicles and communicable with the order quantity calculation apparatus recited in claim 5 also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claim 5 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including an apparatus comprising a processor and memory coupled to the processor, an external apparatus and system comprising an apparatus amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); performing repetitive calculations, Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claim 4 recites steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in the independent claims. Therefore claims 4 does not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Distinguishable over the Prior Art of Record
The prior art rejections of the amended claims are removed in light of Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed August 11, 2025, in particular pg. 4-5 regarding the prior art of record. Examiner analyzed claim 1 in view of the prior art on record and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine references with a reasonable expectation of success as discussed below.
Tamaki et al. (US 20150220875 A1) teaches managing a replacement timing interval of a maintenance part (see par. 0001). Specifically, Tamaki discloses a demand forecast simulator unit, calculates past part replacement timing of each of the machines in the target area from a maintenance-part replacement timing interval for which a tentative value is previously determined and from the working time memorized in the machine working time information memory unit, and counts and outputs the accumulated total number of past maintenance-part replacement demand of all the machines in time series (see par. 0068) and demand-supply gap calculation unit is a functional unit that calculates and outputs a maintenance-part demand-supply gap value which is the difference between the accumulated total number of maintenance-part replacement demands in time series output from the demand forecast simulator unit and the accumulated total number of maintenance-part supply memorized in the maintenance-part supply history information memory unit (see par. 0069).
Kanbe et al. (US 20200013237 A1) teaches providing a more accurate maintenance notification for the operator of the vehicle by determining an appropriate maintenance timing for the vehicle on the basis of the vehicle data and the operation information of a driver (see par. 0006). Specifically, Kanbe discloses generating an index relating to the maintenance of the vehicle (and the components provided in the vehicle) on the basis of the accumulated data collected (acquired) from the plurality of vehicles. Here, the index includes a correlation between the operation history and the wear of the component, a determination criterion for identifying the type of the component suitable for the operation history, and the like (see par. 0035), an accumulation data processing unit generates an index for use in determining the content and time of the maintenance (see par. 0051), a server performs a prediction process relating to maintenance on a certain vehicle (target vehicle) that is subject to the maintenance prediction on the basis of the various information of the vehicle and the information (index) determined (see par. 0051) and the server determines candidates for the time and content of the maintenance for the vehicle on the basis of the estimated state of the vehicle estimated and the index information acquired (see par. 0061).
Ahmed (US 20200258138 A1) teaches optimizing vehicle sharing pools based on an analysis of driving patterns of a driver (see par. 0001). Specifically, Ahmed discloses an electronic control unit receives information from a plurality of sensors included in a vehicle. Sensors may be configured to generate output signals conveying driving pattern information associated with a driver operating vehicle. The driving pattern information may characterize at least one of vehicle operations by the driver and usage of the vehicle by the driver. Vehicle operations may be defined by parameter values of vehicle operational parameters and usage parameters. Vehicle operational parameters may include the vehicle's speed, acceleration, brake engagement, steering wheel position, time derivatives of steering wheel position, throttle, time derivatives of throttle, gear, exhaust, revolutions per minutes, mileage, emissions, and/or other vehicle operations. Usage parameters may include vehicle capacity information (e.g., passenger amount, animal amount (e.g., pets), etc.), type(s) of roadways travelled on, purpose of vehicle use, distances travelled per use, travel time, frequency of the distances travelled, frequency of the travel times, frequency of vehicle use, ambient conditions, and/or other usage parameters. Ambient conditions may include external temperature, rain, hail, snow, fog, and/or other naturally occurring conditions. Types of roads travelled may include highway, city streets, unpaved (e.g., dirty, sand, mud, etc.), and/or other types of roads (see par. 0025)
However, Tamaki, Kanbe and Ahmed, both individually or in combination, do not explicitly teach the combination of claim limitations as a whole as recited in independent claim 1. Thus, claim is found to be distinguishable over the prior art. Claim 5 is distinguishable over the prior art for similar reasons as cited for claim 1. Dependent claim 4 is distinguishable because it depends on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fukuyo et al. (US 20220027143 A1) – Usage information is information representing the usage state of the vehicle. The time when the vehicle was used is, for example, the time period that is from when the ignition is turned on until when the ignition is turned off and in which the vehicle travels and stops. The usage information may include information representing the frequency of usage of a plurality of functions of the vehicle, for example.
Hussain et al. (Car e-Talk: An IoT-Enabled Cloud-Assisted Smart Fleet Maintenance System) – In this article, we present a fleet maintenance system called Car e-Talk that uses Internet-of-Things technology and cloud computing to monitor vehicle health and report any anomalies along with information about the nearest maintenance center. Different sensors are attached to the vehicle for monitoring the vehicle’s health. Data from sensors are received on the driver’s smartphone through a microcontroller and, after processing, useful information is displayed on the driver’s mobile screen. The same information is uploaded to a cloud server, where a history of the system is maintained and analyzed for predictive maintenance. The advantages of our system are that it is able to monitor real-time vehicle health statistics, predict fleet health and maintenance, improve vehicle diagnostics, and perform automatic reporting, thus increasing the usable life of the vehicle, fleet productivity, and performance.
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 Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty Munson can be reached on (571)270-5396. 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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights