DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-11 have been examined. Claims 12-20 have been withdrawn. 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/02/2023 is being considered by the examiner. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that elements of claim 1 are embedded in claim 12 and claim 12 is effectively a dependent claim. This is not found persuasive because the separate inventions of claims 1-11 (Group I) and claims 12-20 (Group II) are directed to separate subject matter that would require a separate field of search. Invention I (claims 1-11) is directed towards finding the best candidate vehicle using optimal tendency matcher functions and algorithms. However, Invention II which includes not just claim 12 but also 13-20 has the separate utility of being directed towards determining a car master selector that may sell a vehicle and different fees for the user regarding how to test drive the vehicle. These separate inventions would result in a serious search/examination burden because they would need different classification searches, they include divergent subject matter, and completely different search strategies. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a user tendency determiner configured to…” in claim 1; “a price calculator unit configured to…” in claim 1; “an optimal tendency matcher configured to…” in claims 1-4, and 10; “a leveling index calculator configured to…” in claim 3, “a matching index calculator configured to…” in claims 4-5; “a weight applicator configured to…” in claims 6-9; and “an age index calculator configured to..” in claim 11. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-11rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1-11 recite such limitation(s): “a user tendency determiner configured to…” in claim 1; “a price calculator unit configured to…” in claim 1; “an optimal tendency matcher configured to…” in claims 1-4, and 10; “a leveling index calculator configured to…” in claim 3, “a matching index calculator configured to…” in claims 4-5; “a weight applicator configured to…” in claims 6-9; and “an age index calculator configured to..” in claim 11. The subject matter of the claim (recited above) does not conform to the disclosure in such a manner in which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize such system as being that which Applicant adequately described as the invention or what applicant actually had possession of at the time of the invention. A review of the disclosure does not reveal the manner in which the user tendency determiner determines a user tendency and a trim tendency, the price index calculation unit derives a price index, the optimal tendency matcher derives vehicles conforming the trim tendency of the user, the leveling index calculator calculates a plurality of leveling indexes, the matching index calculator calculates a tendency matching index, the weight applicator calculates a tendency matching index/applies weight/calculates total index, and the age index calculator derives an age index (i.e. how all these actions are determined or calculated). It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure/algorithm as to how these values are generate d raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of this feature at the time of filing. Claims 2- 11 inherit the deficiency noted in claim 1 , Claims 4-9 inherit the deficiencies of claim 3, Claims 5-9 inherit the deficiencies of claim 4, and Claims 7-9 inherit the deficiencies of claim 6 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim limitations “a user tendency determiner configured to…” in claim 1; “a price calculator unit configured to…” in claim 1; “an optimal tendency matcher configured to…” in claims 1-4, and 10; “a leveling index calculator configured to…” in claim 3, “a matching index calculator configured to…” in claims 4-5; “a weight applicator configured to…” in claims 6-9; and “an age index calculator configured to..” in claim 11 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant's Specification does not disclose what is meant by the term "determiner", “calculator”, “matcher”, or “applicator” for any of these limitations and whether it corresponds to a structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claims 2-11 inherit the deficiency noted in claim 1, Claims 4-9 inherit the deficiencies of claim 3, Claims 5-9 inherit the deficiencies of claim 4, and Claims 7-9 inherit the deficiencies of claim 6. 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 1-11 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 -11 , is directed to a machine. 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: A user tendency determiner configured to 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; A price index calculation unit configured to, With respect to a plurality of vehicles derive a price index of each vehicle based on a price of each vehicle and a vehicle purchase budget of the user; and An optimal tendency matcher configured to Derive, as a plurality of candidate vehicles, vehicles conforming 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. 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. 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 , price index calculation unit, 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- 11 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 2- 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: a leveling index calculator (claim s 3), 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 a n 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 a n 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- 11 are also ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1 , 3-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 10,733,656) in view of Parasad et al. (US 2013/0103533). Regarding Claim 1 , Price discloses a vehicle recommendation system comprising: (col 1, lns 43-57 disclosing systems for determining purchase recommendations of vehicles) A user tendency determiner configured to 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, exa c t 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 ). However, Price does not expressly provide for 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. Parasad discloses 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included price index as taught by Parasad in the vehicle recommendation system of Price because it would allow for easier assessment of a products parts with budgetary constraints while allowing for some functional deviation from the budget. See Parasad paragraph [0004], [0006]-[0007]. Regarding Claim 3 , Price and Parasad teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Price discloses 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). Regarding Claim 4 , Price and Parasad teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 3 . Additionally, Price discloses wherein the optimal tendency matcher further comprises a matching index calculator configured to calculate a tendency matching index, the tendency matching index being a matching index between a result of applying a plurality of leveling indexes to a vehicle tendency of each candidate vehicle with respect to the plurality of candidate vehicles and the user tendency (See at least col 9, lns 15-25 disclosing a sort score may be determined from the parameter similarity values and received parameter weights in a manner that allows vehicles more similar to a user’s preferences, as indicated in user preference data, to have a relatively higher sort score). Regarding Claim 5 , Price and Parasad teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 4 . Additionally, Price discloses wherein the matching index calculator is configured to calculate a plurality of fourth indexes by correspondingly multiplying a plurality of third indexes, obtained by multiplying the plurality of leveling indexes by a plurality of second indexes for a plurality of vehicle tendency elements corresponding to the vehicle tendency of each candidate vehicle , by a plurality of first indexes for a plurality of user tendency elements corresponding to the user tendency (See at least col 7, lns 1-40 disclosing converting parameters using equations into similarity values etc., col 9, lns 4-55 disclosing ability to use respective parameters and convert into similarity values). Regarding Claim 6 , Price and Parasad teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 5 . Additionally, Price discloses wherein the optimal tendency matcher further comprises a weight applicator configured to calculate a tendency matching index by applying at least one weight according to each candidate vehicle with respect to a plurality of candidate vehicles to the plurality of fourth indexes of each candidate vehicle (See at least col 1-2, l ns 58-67 & 1-10 disclosing parameter weights applied via various equations to generate scores for each vehicle, col 8, lns 30-39 disclosing how parameter weights are applied/assigned, col 9, lns 18-35 disclosing parameter weights used with parameter similarity values, col 9, lns 55-67 disclosing equation 3 used to calculate sort score based on parameter weights). Regarding Claim 7 , Price and Parasad teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 6 . Additionally, Price discloses wherein the weight applicator is configured to apply a weight according to a trim tendency of each candidate vehicle with respect to the plurality of candidate vehicles to the fourth index of the corresponding vehicle tendency element among the plurality of fourth indexes of each candidate vehicle (See at least col 1-2, l ns 58-67 & 1-10 disclosing parameter weights applied via various equations to generate scores for each vehicle, col 8, lns 30-39 disclosing how parameter weights are applied/assigned, col 9, lns 18-35 disclosing parameter weights used with parameter similarity values, col 9, lns 55-67 disclosing equation 3 used to calculate sort score based on parameter weights). Regarding Claim 8 Price and Parasad teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 7 . Additionally, Price discloses wherein the weight applicator is configured to calculate a total index by summing the plurality of fourth indexes to which the weight according to the trim tendency of each candidate vehicle is applied with respect to the plurality of candidate vehicles (See col 9, lns 50-55 disclosing equation 2 ). Regarding Claim 10 , Price and Parasad teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Price discloses wherein the optimal tendency matcher is configured to determine a plurality of purchase targe vehicles based on a tendency matching index indicating a degree of matching between the user tendency and the vehicle tendency of each of the plurality of candidate vehicles (See at least col 9, lns 15-25 disclosing a sort score may be determined from the parameter similarity values and received parameter weights in a manner that allows vehicles more similar to a user’s preferences, as indicated in user preference data, to have a relatively higher sort score, col 10, lns 40-50 disclosing based on parameter weights and parameter similarity values shown in table 2, sort scores may be determined according to equations 1 and 2 as shown in table 3). Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 10,733,656) in view of Parasad et al. (US 2013/0103533) , and further in view of Jackson et al. (US 2021/0166103). Regarding Claim 2 , Price and Parasad teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. However, neither expressly provides for wherein the optimal tendency matcher is configured to derive the plurality of candidate vehicles based on an estimated number of passengers together with the trim tendency of the user and the price index, and wherein the estimated number of passengers is received from the user terminal . Jackson discloses wherein the optimal tendency matcher is configured to derive the plurality of candidate vehicles based on an estimated number of passengers together with the trim tendency of the user and the price index, and wherein the estimated number of passengers is received from the user terminal (See at least paragraph [0016] disclosing optimizing vehicle purchase process by helping drivers based on their cargo/transportation needs, [0019] disclosing user information includes passenger and cargo demands, [0020], [0033] disclosing vehicle data including number of passengers and cargo space accommodated). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included passenger information as taught by Jackson in the vehicle recommendation system of Price because it would allow for an improved and optimized vehicle purchase process by helping drivers determine an optimal vehicle based on cargo and transportation needs with a system that is easier to use and robust . See Jackson paragraph [0016] , [0022] . Regarding Claim 11 , Price and Parasad teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. However, neither expressly provides for further comprising an age index calculator configured to derive an age index for an age of a user predicted to purchase each vehicle with respect to the plurality of vehicles in consideration of a segment, a brand, a type, and an energy source of each vehicle. Jackson discloses further comprising an age index calculator configured to derive an age index for an age of a user predicted to purchase each vehicle with respect to the plurality of vehicles in consideration of a segment, a brand, a type, and an energy source of each vehicle. (See at least paragraph [0024] disclosing learning information and predicting based on preferences by age, [0028] disclosing collected data such as age, [0020] disclosing brand, model, classes, sizes, features, manufacturers, make, model, trim, MPG information, [0022] disclosing vehicle brand and type preferences as well as demographic characteristics being associated with certain vehicle-related preferences, [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included age index as taught by Jackson in the vehicle recommendation system of Price because it would allow for more accurate models to help vary recommendations across a universe of drivers and improve recommendation quality. See Jackson paragraph [0022], [0024]. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 10,733,656) in view of Parasad et al. (US 2013/0103533) , further in view of Jackson et al. (US 2021/0166103), and further in view of Latronico et al. (US 11,010,827). Regarding Claim 9 , Price and Parasad teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 8. Price discloses wherein the weight applicator is configured to calculate the tendency matching index (See at least col 1-2, lns 58-67 & 1-10 disclosing parameter weights applied via various equations to generate scores for each vehicle, col 8, lns 30-39 disclosing how parameter weights are applied/assigned, col 9, lns 18-35 disclosing parameter weights used with parameter similarity values, col 9, lns 55-67 disclosing equation 3 used to calculate sort score based on parameter weights). However, neither expressly provides for adding a camping factor index and a passenger factor index to the total index, the camping factor index being an index set in response to each candidate vehicle being a vehicle suitable for camping, and the passenger factor index being an index set according to a number of passengers ridable in each candidate vehicle. Jackson discloses the passenger factor index being an index set according to a number of passengers ridable in each candidate vehicle (See at least paragraph [0016] disclosing optimizing vehicle purchase process by helping drivers based on their cargo/transportation needs, [0019] disclosing user information includes passenger and cargo demands, [0020], [0033] disclosing vehicle data including number of passengers and cargo space accommodated). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included passenger information as taught by Jackson in the vehicle recommendation system of Price because it would allow for an improved and optimized vehicle purchase process by helping drivers determine an optimal vehicle based on cargo and transportation needs with a system that is easier to use and robust. See Jackson paragraph [0016], [0022]. Latronico discloses adding a camping factor index and a passenger factor index to the total index, the camping factor index being an index set in response to each candidate vehicle being a vehicle suitable for camping (See at least col 4, lns 32-58 disclosing user enters information regarding vehicle they wish to buy such as user’s preferred activities such as camping with the vehicle in order for platform to identify type of vehicle/set of possible vehicles to be recommended, col 10, lns 48-55 disclosing vehicle type include campers, col 11, lns 55-67 disclosing searching for vehicle based on interest in camping). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included camping as taught by Jackson in the vehicle recommendation system of Price because it would allow for better identification of vehicles to recommend. See Latronico col 4, lns 32-58. Conclusion The references cited in the form PTO-892 were not applied under relevant section §103 in the above Office Action, however, they are considered relevant to both claimed and unclaimed features of the instant invention. Applicant is herein advised to review the cited prior art references prior to responding to the instant Office Action in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application. For example: “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. McClung et al. (US 2024/0037629) disclosing alternate fuel vehicle recommendation in response to user survey. Ramanuja et al. (US 2015/0363865) disclosing vehicle recommendation using trim and preference information, weights, matching, and various equations. Liu et al. (US 2014/0279263) disclosing converting characteristics to trim to numeric values, setting differences between user and vehicle information, setting weights, and computing similarity scores to recommend vehicles. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRITTANY E BARGEON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2861 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jeffrey A Smith can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6763 . 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 /Jeffrey A. Smith/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688