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 ACTION
This communication is a final action in response to amendment filed on 08/18/2025. Claims 1-7,11-18, 20 are pending.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument directed to claim objection ,112, and art rejection are persuasive. These objection/rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument directed to 101 rejection is not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that claims are eligible based on similarity to example 21. Examiner respectfully disagree.
As an initial matter, example 21 is based on past guidance. While current guidance is intended to be narrower where a claim that’s eligible prior to 2019 PEG (which is currently incorporated in MPEP), would also be eligible, it may be more relevant to use more recent example. Nevertheless, in this case, examiner notes example 21 specifically discuss technical difficulties in the past regarding providing stock price quote in its relevant operating environment for traders. However, in the present claim invention, there is no technical difficulties in providing a different lease plan (contract terms) to a user, other than creating such lease plan. In other words, the only difference between prior art system and applicant’s system is in the terms of contract being written differently. Contracting terms such as the details of lease plan is part of abstract idea and therefore wouldn’t be an additional element that integrates an abstract idea into practical application by improving computer technology. See MPEP 2106.05 (a) II regarding improvement to abstract idea itself.
Applicant cites 0068, 0085-0090 of spec to show improvement, however, these paragraphs are related to the terms of lease plan, which as discussed above, are terms of contracts. None of them show any technical difficulties in displaying different contract terms.
Applicant lastly argues the existence of physical hardware devices in the claim. While claim requires computer hardware to operate, they’re nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or generally linking the abstract idea to operating environment of computer. They would not be able to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Applicant includes further arguments based on similarity/dependency, please see above.
Claim Objection
Claim 6 is objected because outputting fee in vehicle appears to be a typo of outputting fee “of” vehicle. Examiner recommend reviewing all claims to correct any other additional minor typos.
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 1-7,11-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A prong 1
As per claim 1, examiner believes all the limitations recited in the body of claim 1 recites an abstract idea with the exception of physical hardware components such as controller, memory, communication unit, and terminal.
These steps shows calculating and outputting lease plans for vehicle. As discussed above, these lease plan falls into contract terms, which falls within certain methods of organizing human activities. Additionally, These steps can be performed by human with help of pen and paper to calculate various different lease plans using formulas written down on paper. Therefore claim 1 also falls into mental processes. In any case, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2
All additional elements (various physical hardware identified above) are generic computer components discussed in high generality. They’re merely being used to implement the abstract idea by being “configured to” or having actions acted upon it. This is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Further, this is also merely generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use of computer. Even viewed as an ordered combination, this additional element is still nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and generally linking the abstract idea on a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional element is not integrated into practical application. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with regard to step 2A prong 2, in which the analysis still applies in step 2B, the additional element, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and generally linking the abstract idea on a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional element also does not provide “significantly more” to an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2-7, 11-18, 20 still recites the same abstract idea as claim 1 by further limiting the lease plans being calculated/shown and/or including limitations that are substantially similar to those discussed previously. The additional elements are used substantially similar manner and therefore would be able to analyze similarly. The conclusion would still be the same and therefore these claims are also ineligible.
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 GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights