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 .
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-4 recite a device (machine) and Claim 5 recites a method (process) and therefore fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?):
Referring to claims 1-5, the claims are directed to a manner of determining a settlement amount for a lease of a vehicle, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts under the Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities grouping of abstract ideas respectively.
The abstract idea portion of the claims is as follows:
(Claim 1) [An information processing device comprising: a memory] storing a first table storing a first reduction value related to an assessment for each pre-classified item related to a defect in a vehicle; a second table that is a table storing a second reduction value related to an assessment for each of the same items as the first table, in which the second reduction value for a first item that is an item related to a defect of a first degree in a first part is set to a value smaller than the first reduction value; and [a processor configured to] receive,[from a facility terminal via a network], defect data including defect identifiers for a vehicle returned at an expiration of a lease contract period and an indicator of whether the vehicle is a new vehicle or a used vehicle; calculate a first settlement amount based on the first table and transmit the calculated first settlement amount in response to the lease contract period of the new vehicle expiring; calculate a second settlement amount based on the second table and transmit the calculated second settlement amount to the facility terminal in response to the lease contract period of the used vehicle expiring; and charge the calculated first settlement amount to a user who returns the new vehicle and charge the calculated second settlement amount to a user who returned the used vehicle.
(Claim 5) An information processing method executed [by a computer], the method comprising: storing a first table storing a first reduction value related to an assessment for each pre-classified item related to a defect in a vehicle; and a second table that is a table soring a second reduction value related to an assessment for each of same items as the first table, in which the second reduction value for a first item that is an item related to a defect of a first degree in a first part is set to a value smaller than the first reduction value; receiving, [from a facility terminal via a network], defect data including defect identifiers for a vehicle returned at an expiration of a lease contract period and an indicator of whether the vehicle is a new vehicle or a used vehicle; calculating a first settlement amount based on the first table and transmitting the calculated first settlement amount [to the facility terminal] in response to the lease contract period of the new vehicle expiring; calculating a second settlement amount based on the second table and transmitting the calculated second settlement amount [to the facility terminal] in response to the lease contract period of the used vehicle expiring; and charging the calculated first settlement amount to a user who returns the new vehicle and charge the calculated second settlement amount to a user who returned the used vehicle.
Where the portions not bracketed recite the abstract idea
Here the claims recite concepts performed in both Mental Process (including a judgment, evaluation, opinion, determination) and Certain Methods of Organizing Activity, in particular managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. In the present application concepts reciting a manner of determining a settlement amount for a completed lease of a vehicle based on the state of the vehicle (See paragraphs 3-5 and 9-11).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts capable of being performed in the human mind or with pen and paper it fall under the Mental Processes grouping of abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts capable of being performed or managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions) it falls under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. See Id.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?):
The examiner views the following as the additional elements:
An information processing device. (See paragraph 15)
A memory. (See paragraph 28)
A processor. (See paragraphs 15 and 28)
A facility terminal. (See paragraph 30)
A network. (See paragraph 18)
A computer. (See paragraph 27)
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they act to merely “apply” the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f))
The combination of these additional elements and/or results oriented steps are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f). Accordingly, even in combination 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. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?):
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method and system that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 4 further define the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of a generic processor (See paragraphs 15 and 28) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claims 2 and 4 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Therefore claim 3 is considered to be patent ineligible.
In conclusion the claims do not provide an inventive concept, because the claims do not recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the claims. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 5, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on page 5 of the Remarks, regarding claim interpretation invoking 112(f) the examiner finds Applicant’s amendments persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner has withdrawn the 112(f) interpretation.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on pages 5-6 of the Remarks, regarding the 112 (b) rejection the Examiner finds Applicant’s amendments persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner has withdrawn the 112 (b) rejection.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on pages 6-7 of the Remarks, regarding the 101 rejection the Examiner finds unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that claims provide an improvement to a technical field of vehicle leasing system by accurately assessing used vehicle in a different manner from accessing new vehicle, where pre-existing defects are difficult to distinguish from lease-period defects. According to Applicant the claims provide a particular solution by using a first table for a new vehicle and using a second table with lower reduction values for the used vehicle to improve fairness and efficiency in lease settlement processing, where this solution is technical because it involves a specialized data structure and a networked system including a processor communicating with a facility terminal to optimize defect assessment in processing leased vehicle returns in vehicle leasing systems.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the various improvements cited by Applicant to the business of vehicle leasing rather than an improvement to technology. The limitations argued by Applicant that believe recite additional elements such as storing information in tables used for calculating the settlement amount the Examiner views as part of the recited abstract idea rather than additional elements. Further the Examiner maintains that the additional elements identified by the Examiner are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05 (f).
Applicant argues that the conventional vehicle leasing systems typically only use a single assessment standard for new and used vehicles, which can result in low satisfaction from users. According to Applicant the claims configuration utilizing two distinct tables with different reduction values for the same defect items to calculate the settlement amount by using the appropriate table based on vehicle types and to charge the user based on the calculated settlement amount is specific-non-routine feature of the system. Therefore, Applicant contends the additional elements add significantly more.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the improvements are to the business of vehicle leasing and not directed to a technological improvement. The Examiner reiterates the view the use of two table with different values subsequently used in calculating a settlement amount are steps of the abstract idea and do not constitute additional elements. The additional elements identified by the Examiner are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the Examiner has maintained the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuhara et al. (US 20210110696) -directed to identifying damage associated with a mobile body and providing the information to a repair staff for updating a reservation.
Vercollone et al. (US 20150287130) -directed to assessing damage of a rental vehicle.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL J MONAGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5523. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached on (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.
/M.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629