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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 06/10/25 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a device and a method; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of determining whether or not to lease a previously leased vehicle that has been returned and that needs to be repaired, determining to sell the vehicle, optionally entering into a contract for a re-lease of the vehicle, and determining re-lease results.
Using claim 5 as a representative example that is applicable to claim 1, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
calculating an evaluation result of a state of a first vehicle returned from being leased, according to a predetermined evaluation method;
determining, based on the evaluation result, whether the first vehicle needs to be repaired;
generating and registering in a memory a first re-lease determination result information including information indicating that the first vehicle is targeted for lease again when the evaluation result indicates that the first vehicle does not need to be repaired, and information on the storage period of the first vehicle including a day and time when the first vehicle is stored into the storage space at the facility;
transmitting the first re-lease determination result information
generating and registering in the memory second re-lease determination result information including information indicating that the first vehicle is targeted for sale when the first vehicle needs to be repaired;
transmitting the second re-lease determination result information
deleting from the memory the first re-lease determination result information and the information on storage of the vehicle targeted for re-lease when contract for leasing of the vehicle targeted for lease again registered in the memory is concluded,
determining whether or not a predetermined period of time elapsed since the first vehicle is targeted for lease again based on the storage information of the first vehicle targeted for lease again registered in the memory,
generating, when the predetermined period of time or more elapsed since the first vehicle is targeted for lease again, third re-lease determination result information including information indicating that the result of the re-lease determination is changed to sale, and
changing the first re-lease determination result information to the third re-lease determination result information for the first vehicle in the memory; and
transmitting the third re-lease determination result information
The above limitations are reciting a process where a leased vehicle has been returned and is being evaluated to determine if the vehicle can be re-leased or if the vehicle should be sold when it is in need of repair, such as by sending the vehicle to the auction lot when it cannot be sold to a customer due to repairs being needed. The claimed elements above that are determining whether or not to re-lease a leased vehicle that has been returned, based on evaluating the condition of the vehicle, is a commercial business practice that is a certain method or organizing human activities. Car dealerships are known to lease vehicles to customers and when they are returned they are inspected to see if the vehicle has any issues or problems at the end of the lease. Decisions about the disposition of the vehicle can then be made. The same is known for rental car agencies that rent/lease cars to customer. When the vehicles are returned they are inspected to ensure that they are in an acceptable condition to return to the rental feel for renting again and may be sent to auction if not in a suitable condition to be re-leased. Leasing and re-leasing previously leased vehicles and the management of the process and analysis of vehicle related information, is a fundamental economic practice that represents a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea.
For claim 1, the additional elements to the claim are the recitation to the claimed device as comprising a communication interface, a controller that is executing the steps that define the abstract idea, and memory. This is reciting the equivalent of generic computing technology being used to perform the steps that define the abstract idea.
For claim 5, the additional elements of the claim are the recitation to “the terminal via the communication interface” and the memory (assuming the memory is not in paper format such as a notebook).
For claims 1, 5, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device (controller, memory, communication interface, terminal) that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited controller and the use of memory a communication interface to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) 1, 5, does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device (the control unit) that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device via the invocation of 112f to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to step 2B in this regard so no further comments are necessary.
For claim 2, the abstract idea is being further defined by the language reciting that when a travel distance (such as mileage) is greater than a predetermined distance, the vehicle is targeted for sale regardless of the result of the evaluation. This is reciting more about the same abstract idea of claim 1 and is simply claiming that if the vehicle has mileage over a certain amount, the vehicle is sent for sale and is not to be leased again. This serves to just define more about the same abstract idea of claim 1. The controller has been treated in the same manner set forth for claim 1 to which applicant is referred.
For claim 3, the claimed limitation that a prediction for a profit of leasing again is less than a predetermined amount, and targeting the vehicle for sale regardless of the result of the evaluation is reciting more about the same abstract idea of claim 1 and is simply claiming that if the profit from leasing the vehicle again is below a certain amount, such as the amount one could get from selling the vehicle, the vehicle is sent for sale. This serves to just define more about the same abstract idea of claim 1. The controller has been treated in the same manner set forth for claim 1 to which the applicant is referred. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 4, reciting that the vehicle is targeted for sale when a lease contract is not concluded, is reciting that the vehicle is sent for sale such as to an auction. This is reciting more about the abstract idea of claim 1. The controller has been treated in the same manner set forth for claim 1 to which the applicant is referred. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 6, 7, the applicant is reciting more about the same abstract idea of claim 1, 5. The automatic notification in response to the third re-lease determination indicating sale, that is accessible by staff, is reciting more about the abstract idea. The reference to the terminal has been treated in the same manner that was set forth for claims 1, 5 and does not render the claims eligible. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. On page 6 of the reply the applicant argues that the cited claim language provides for integration into a practical application and is an improvement to logistics technology. Most of what has been argued other than the controller and memory and communication interface, are elements that are defining the abstract idea. The claims are not improving technology in any manner. The result of the claim does not improve technology and even if logistics are being improved, logistics is not technology. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 7 the various steps of determining if the vehicle is a lease target or a sale target and comments on how the claims allow one to suppress a prolongation of the storage period of the vehicle in the storage space. The applicant argues that the invention improves logistics by reducing an amount of time a vehicle is being stored. This is not persuasive. Reducing the time a vehicle is being stored by determining to sell it if in need of repair, or by re-leasing the vehicle, does not improve technology. Reducing the amount of time a vehicle is being stored is an advantage that the abstract idea may provide for, but is not improving technology such that the claims would be eligible. The applicant is arguing the abstract idea and the benefits or advantages that the abstract idea provides. This does not equate to an improvement in technology but is at most an improved abstract idea.
On pages 7-8 of the reply the applicant argues that the deletion of information from memory helps reduce an amount of storage consumed in the memory, and argues that this improves technology. The deletion of memory from storage is something that is itself part of the abstract idea. A person can manually delete information from memory in a computer. Also, technology is not being improved by the mere deletion of data from memory in a computer when the deletion is claimed in a generic and purely functional manner as claimed. The deletion of data from memory in a purely functional sense and recited broadly as claimed, does not provide an inventive concept to the claims that renders them eligible. The argument is not persuasive.
For the dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, and for independent claim 5, the applicant relies on the arguments presented for claim 1. This is not persuasive for the same reasons set forth above.
The prior art rejection of the claims has been withdrawn in view of the amended claims. The cited prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed invention in total.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626