DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are currently amended.
Claim 3 has been canceled.
Claim 21 is newly added.
Claims 1-2 and 4-21 are currently pending.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 21 have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
35 USC 112
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 07/02/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 rejections of 04/02/2026 has been withdrawn.
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 07/02/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Office actin characterized claim 1 as reciting only the result of recommending a vehicle when claim 1 recite a specific, non-generic computational methodology for deriving the candidate vehicles providing for a concrete-rule based mathematical operation with defined inputs and a defined transformation and therefore does not “apply it” on a computer. Applicant further argues that the Specification at paragraph [0120] provides a technical improvement to a recommendation process by using leveling computation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, and conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Id.
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are merely invoked as a tool”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016) citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. This is reflected in paragraph [0003] & [0005]-[0007] of Applicant’s specification, which describe Applicant’s claimed invention as directed toward solving problems such as recommending an optimal vehicle for a user who wants to purchase a vehicle. The statements made in Applicant’s specification, specifically at paragraphs [0120], do not provide any detail regarding how the claimed invention is providing any improvement to the functioning of the computer/other technology. Rather, the claimed leveling computation is directed to an abstract idea, specifically the use of a specific mathematical equation to sum indexes for a plurality of elements and then divides them by the number of the plurality of candidate vehicles to arrive at a plurality of leveling indexes. This itself is an abstract idea that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. There is nothing in the claims nor Applicant’s specification that suggests the calculation is an improvement to a technical problem. Applicant argues that the specification confirms the operation solves a technical problem in the recommendation process itself. However, this is merely a conclusory statement and providing recommendations is considered to be certain methods of organizing human activity.
The improvements regarding the recommendation process and leveling indexes are not technological improvements. Although the claims include computer technology such as a system comprising a processor and memory storing software and user terminal, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the Courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike these precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” but are directed to improving the commercial task of recommending vehicles. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in more accurate recommendations, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field. For example, there is no improvement to the computing system or user terminal. While these additional elements are used, it is the recommendation itself using specific data that is an improvement. The claimed process is utilizing known computing systems to improve vehicle recommendations, e.g., commercial interactions. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements.
Applicant further argues that the claim as an ordered combination reflects a technical improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claims do not describe how the particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement and the claims, in fact, only merely recite the abstract idea of vehicle recommendation being performed on a set of generic computer components. Applicant’s claims merely recite steps performed by generic computer components recited in a generic manner. While the computing components are included within the claims, they are claimed in a generic manner and merely perform generic functions. Applicant’s disclosure does not articulate or suggest how these additional elements function, individually or in combination, in any manner other than using generic functionality nor does the disclosure articulate how the elements are particularly arranged in order to provide a technical improvement. While the claims are analyzed both individually and in an ordered combination, they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For at least these reasons, Examiner maintains the previous 35 USC 101 rejection.
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 07/02/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 rejections of 04/02/2026 has been withdrawn.
Request for Rejoinder
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 1-2, 4-11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis the claims are directed to statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03. Specifically, the system, as claimed in claims 1-2, 4-11, is directed to a machine. The method, as claimed in claim 21, is directed to a process.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of recommending a vehicle. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
determine a user tendency and a trim tendency of a user corresponding to the user tendency based on a response to a user tendency test received form a user;
derive a price index of each vehicle of a plurality of vehicles based on a price of each vehicle and a vehicle purchase budget of the user; and
Derive, as a plurality of candidate vehicles, vehicles conforming to the trim tendency of the user and having the price index equal to or greater than a predetermined critical price index, among the plurality of vehicles, based on at least the trim tendency of the user and the price index, wherein the plurality of candidate vehicles includes a vehicle to be determined whether it is suitable for recommendation to the user as a purchase vehicle,
Calculate, with respect to the plurality of candidate vehicles, a plurality of leveling indexes for leveling a plurality of indexes of a plurality of vehicle tendency elements of each candidate vehicle of the plurality of candidate vehicles, wherein the program calculates each leveling index of the plurality of leveling indexes by summing each index of the plurality of vehicle tendency elements with respect to all of the plurality of candidate vehicles and dividing a number of the plurality of candidate vehicles by the sum corresponding to each vehicle tendency element; and
Derive the plurality of candidate vehicles as a plurality of purchase target vehicles based on the plurality of leveling indexes.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). The abstract idea identified above is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).”” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because determining a user tendency/trim tendency, deriving price index of each vehicle, and derive a plurality of candidate vehicles is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a sales activity and/or relates to business relations.
Additionally, representative claim 1 recites: Calculate, with respect to the plurality of candidate vehicles, a plurality of leveling indexes for leveling a plurality of indexes of a plurality of vehicle tendency elements of each candidate vehicle of the plurality of candidate vehicles, wherein the program calculates each leveling index of the plurality of leveling indexes by summing each index of the plurality of vehicle tendency elements with respect to all of the plurality of candidate vehicles and dividing a number of the plurality of candidate vehicles by the sum corresponding to each vehicle tendency element. This abstract idea is considered to be a mathematical concept. In this case, the abstract idea in the above limitation is a mathematical concept because it recites the equation for calculating the plurality of leveling indexes. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as a system, a processor, memory storing software, and a user terminal. Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant's specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., recommending a vehicle) being applied on a general-purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components...‘ad[d] nothing. ..that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’... [and] [v]iewed as a whole...[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2 and 4-11 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 2 and 4-11 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims include additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claim 1: matching index calculator (claims 4-5), an age index calculator (claim 11). However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely sue a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 and 6-10 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claim 1. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Thus, dependent claims 2 and 4-11 are also ineligible.
Independent claim 21 recite the same abstract idea represented in representative claim 1. Independent Claim 21 does not recite any additional elements supplemental to those already recited in representative claim 1. The additional elements in Independent claim 21 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. Claims 2 and 4-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of subject matter free of prior art:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art. The features are as follows:
Calculate, with respect to the plurality of candidate vehicles, a plurality of leveling indexes for leveling a plurality of indexes of a plurality of vehicle tendency elements of each candidate vehicle of the plurality of candidate vehicles, wherein the program calculates each leveling index of the plurality of leveling indexes by summing each index of the plurality of vehicle tendency elements with respect to all of the plurality of candidate vehicles and dividing a number of the plurality of candidate vehicles by the sum corresponding to each vehicle tendency element; and
Derive the plurality of candidate vehicles as a plurality of purchase target vehicles based on the plurality of leveling indexes.
One piece of pertinent prior art is Price et al. (US 10,733,656) disclosing determine a user tendency and a trim tendency of a user corresponding to the user tendency based on a response to a user tendency test received form a user terminal (See at least col 4, lns 43-67 disclosing various user preference data input by user, dealer/third party, collected from user’s activities/behavior, or estimated from MLM – user preferences include things such as make, model, color, mileage, fuel economy, location, value, condition, luxury features and may include various ranges, exact matches etc., col 5, lns 1-31 disclosing user tendencies and trim tendencies, col 8, lns 40-55 disclosing answered questions provided by user, col 11-12, lns 59-67 & 1-25 disclosing user preferences, necessary parameters, hard filters, etc.); With respect to a plurality of vehicles derive price of each vehicle and vehicle purchase budget of the user (See at least col 2, lns 43-52 disclosing budget/price information for each vehicle in subset of vehicles); An optional tendency matcher configured to derive, as a plurality of candidate vehicles, vehicles conforming the trim tendency of the user, among a plurality of vehicles, based on at least the trim tendency of the user and the price (See at least col 2, lns 43-52 disclosing determining/calculating set of vehicles based on parameters such as luxury features and/or price, col 4, lns 43-67 disclosing exact matches for user parameters are derived, col 8, lns 3-28, col 9, lns 15-25); and wherein the optimal tendency matcher comprises a leveling index calculator configured to calculate a plurality of leveling indexes for leveling a plurality of indexes of a plurality of vehicle tendency elements of each candidate vehicle with respect to the plurality of candidate vehicles (See at least col 6, lns 55-60 disclosing each parameter of vehicle converted to a parameter similarity value, col 7, lns 1-5 disclosing parameter similarity value is number that correspond to a parameter of a vehicle). Another piece of pertinent prior art is Parasad et al. (US 2013/0103533) disclosing a price index calculation unit configured to drive a price index of each vehicle and having the price index equal to or greater than a predetermined critical price index (See at least paragraphs [0028]-[0030] disclosing system computing price and functional match index and must adhere to an established budget or specified standard of deviation of the established budget, Fig. 1). Another piece of pertinent prior art is McCord et al. (US 2022/0335484) disclosing providing a range of values based on clusters of vehicles divided by the year, make, and model of the vehicles and a general overall condition. See at least paragraph [0005]. Another piece of pertinent prior art is Peckover (US 10,437,891) disclosing determination of relevancy score including sum of relevancy scores for each requested attribute in the search request divided by number of requested attributes in the search request. See col 14, lns 7-15. Another piece of pertinent prior art is “Vehicle Recommendation System using Hybrid Recommender Algorithm and Natural Language Processing Approach” (P. Boteju and L. Munasinghe, Vehicle Recommendation System using Hybrid Recommender Algorithm and Natural Language Processing Approach, 2020 2nd International Conference on Advancements in Computing (ICAC), Malabe, Sri Lanka, 2020, pp. 386-391.) disclosing recommender systems for use in automobile industry that uses trained neural networks, user demographic information, preference information, and vehicle information, and weights, to help output a ranked set of recommendations. However, none of these pieces of prior art nor any others expressly provide for Calculate, with respect to the plurality of candidate vehicles, a plurality of leveling indexes for leveling a plurality of indexes of a plurality of vehicle tendency elements of each candidate vehicle of the plurality of candidate vehicles, wherein the program calculates each leveling index of the plurality of leveling indexes by summing each index of the plurality of vehicle tendency elements with respect to all of the plurality of candidate vehicles and dividing a number of the plurality of candidate vehicles by the sum corresponding to each vehicle tendency element; and Derive the plurality of candidate vehicles as a plurality of purchase target vehicles based on the plurality of leveling indexes.
Conclusion
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 BRITTANY E BARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-2861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
/B.E.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
