DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims/Specification
Claims 1-5 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated June 4, 2025. In the Response, submitted on September 4, 2025, claims 1-2 were amended, claims 3-4 were cancelled, and claim 6 was added. Additionally, the specification was amended. Therefore, claims 1-2 and 6 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicants Remarks on Page 5 of the Response, regarding including allowable subject matter, have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicants Remarks on Page 6 of the Response, regarding the previous objection to the specification, specifically the title, have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended title. Examiner notes no new matter was added to the specification.
Applicants Remarks on Page 7 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicants Remarks on Pages 7-11 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
On Page 8 of the Response, Applicant states “independent claim 1 now affirmatively recites respective and particular operations as well as the interaction between the controller and the terminal and the server device. Such features do not reasonably amount to commercial interaction, which is an overgeneralization of the claims.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that the test for subject matter eligibility, Step 2A, Prong 1, is not whether additional elements “recite[] respective and particular operations as well as the interaction between” the additional elements. Rather, the test is whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Here, obtaining information on a lease agreement of a first vehicle by a first use; receiving information indicating the designation of a first vehicle component that the first user wishes to purchase, wherein the first vehicle component is a vehicle component that can be retrofitted to the first vehicle; receiving, from a stored payment history that is a list of records related to payments of lease fees of vehicles, each of the records including at least a date and a time of payment and payment deadline, a first record related to a payment of a lease fee of the first vehicle by the first user; calculating a number of delay in payment of the lease fee of the first vehicle by the first user using the date and the time of payment and the payment deadline included in the first record; and transmitting information including a payment method for the first vehicle component determined depending on the number of delay in payment indicating a payment status in the lease agreement to the first user to display the payment method for the first vehicle component, wherein, when the payment status is in a first situation in which there is a delay in payment of less than a predetermined number of times within a predetermined period, transmit information indicating that the payment method is only a lump sum payment to the first user to cause display of the payment method is only the lump sum payment, and wherein, when the payment status is in a second situation in which there is a delay in payment of more than the predetermined number of times within the predetermined period, transmit information indicating that a sale of the first vehicle component to the first user is refused to the first user to display that the sale of the first vehicle component to the first user is refused, are all limitations that recite a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., a commercial internation including a sales activity). Furthermore, as explained in Para. [0005] of Applicant’s Specification (PG Publication), “The purpose of the present disclosure is to… enable[] the determination of an appropriate sales method for parts to be retrofitted to a vehicle subject to a lease agreement.” (emphasis added). Therefore, in light of the specification, the above claim limitations recite a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., a commercial interaction including sales activities). As will be discussed further below, the mere recitation of generic computer components (e.g., controller and the terminal and the server device), does not take the claim out of the grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity.
On Page 8 of the Response, Applicant further states “Moreover, amended independent claim 1 recites more than just mere instructions implement an abstract idea using a computer (Office Action at p. 5). Rather, independent claim 1 has been amended to specifically recite patent-eligible details by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the alleged abstract idea by taking into account affirmative and tangible actions performed by the controller, as a constituent component of the claimed apparatus, and the terminal and the server device.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that 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, does impose meaningful limits on practicing an abstract idea. That is, merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on the controller, the terminal and the server device, or merely using the controller, the terminal and the server device as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not impose a meaningful limits on practicing the above recited abstract idea.
On Page 8 of the Response, Applicant further argues “More particularly, meaningful limits on practicing the alleged abstract idea are recited in independent claim 1 so that the claim cannot be merely interpreted as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, but rather as additional claim elements of constituent components that define the claimed apparatus but also integrate amongst each other. In particular, these additional claim elements include receiving, from a terminal of the first user, information indicating the designation of a first vehicle component; receiving, from a server device that is configured to store a payment history that is a list of records related to payments of lease fees of vehicles; and calculating a number of delay in payment of the lease fee of the first vehicle by the first user using the date and the time of payment and the payment deadline included in the first record.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes (as discussed above), the recitation of the additional elements amount to 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. Furthermore, as discussed above, receiving information indicating the designation of a first vehicle component; receiving, from stored payment history that is a list of records related to payments of lease fees of vehicles; and calculating a number of delay in payment of the lease fee of the first vehicle by the first user using the date and the time of payment and the payment deadline included in the first record, are limitations that recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., a commercial interaction including sales activities). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 9 of the Response, Applicant further argues “Further, the additional claim elements make practical use of the claimed features by causing a display of the terminal to display: the payment method for the first vehicle component, the payment method as being only the lump sum payment, and the sale of the first vehicle component to the first user being refused. In particular, independent claim 1 has been amended to recite transmitting information including a payment method for the first vehicle component determined depending on the number of delay in payment indicating a payment status in the lease agreement to the terminal of the first user to cause a display of the terminal to display the payment method for the first vehicle component, wherein when the payment status is in a first situation in which there is a delay in payment of less than a predetermined number of times within a predetermined period, the controller is configured to execute transmitting information indicating that the payment method is only a lump sum payment to the terminal of the first user to cause the display of the terminal to display the payment method is only the lump sum payment, and when the payment status is in a second situation in which there is a delay in payment of more than the predetermined number of times within the predetermined period, the controller is configured to execute transmitting information indicating that a sale of the first vehicle component to the first user is refused to the terminal of the first user to cause the display of the terminal to display that the sale of the first vehicle component to the first user is refused. In this manner, the additional claim elements enable determination of an appropriate payment method of a vehicle component to be retrofitted to a vehicle subject to a lease agreement, and present the appropriate payment method of the vehicle component to a user. Therefore, the additional claim elements, as amended in independent claim 1 integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because they impose meaningful limits on practicing the alleged abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes “a display of the terminal” is recited at a high-level of generality, such that when viewed as a whole (and in light of the Specification, See Para. 38 of the PG Publication disclosing the display of the terminal), it amounts to 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. Therefore, the recitation of the additional element of a display (for displaying data) does not “impose meaningful limits on practicing the… abstract idea” as Applicant alleges.
On Pages 9-10, Applicant further argues “Still further, when the claims are viewed as an ordered combination and as a whole, they recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. In particular, as a consequence of receiving information from a terminal of the first user that indicates the designation of a first vehicle component; receiving each of the records from a server device that is configured to store a payment history that is a list of records related to payments of lease fees of vehicles; and calculating a number of delay in payment of the lease fee of the first vehicle by the first, the controller is configured to execute transmitting information to the terminal of the first user to cause a display of the payment method for the first vehicle component, wherein the controller is configured to execute transmitting information to the terminal of the first user to cause it to particularly display the payment method and the sale of the first vehicle component to the first user being refused when the payment status is in a first situation and in a second situation relative to the delay in payment and a predetermined number of times within a predetermined period. The combination of these additional claim elements, when viewed in its entirety with the rest of the claimed elements, do not constitute well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes, “the controller is configured to execute transmitting information to the terminal” and “caus[ing] a display” amounts to 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 above, the remaining limitations above recite the abstract idea. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-2 and 6 are directed to an information processing apparatus comprising a controller (i.e., a machine), and therefore the claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites a series of functions of: obtaining information on a lease agreement of a first vehicle by a first use; receiving information indicating the designation of a first vehicle component that the first user wishes to purchase, wherein the first vehicle component is a vehicle component that can be retrofitted to the first vehicle; receiving, from a stored payment history that is a list of records related to payments of lease fees of vehicles, each of the records including at least a date and a time of payment and payment deadline, a first record related to a payment of a lease fee of the first vehicle by the first user; calculating a number of delay in payment of the lease fee of the first vehicle by the first user using the date and the time of payment and the payment deadline included in the first record; and transmitting information including a payment method for the first vehicle component determined depending on the number of delay in payment indicating a payment status in the lease agreement to the first user to display the payment method for the first vehicle component, wherein, when the payment status is in a first situation in which there is a delay in payment of less than a predetermined number of times within a predetermined period, transmit information indicating that the payment method is only a lump sum payment to the first user to cause display of the payment method is only the lump sum payment, and wherein, when the payment status is in a second situation in which there is a delay in payment of more than the predetermined number of times within the predetermined period, transmit information indicating that a sale of the first vehicle component to the first user is refused to the first user to display that the sale of the first vehicle component to the first user is refused.
The claim as a whole recites a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations recited above– (under broadest reasonable interpretation) recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, e.g., commercial interaction (See for example, Para. 4 of the Specification sating “The purpose of the present disclosure…enables the determination of an appropriate sales method for parts to be retrofitted to a vehicle subject to a lease agreement.”) Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The mere recitation of generic computer components ((i) an information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to execute a process, (ii) a terminal and a display of the terminal, (iii) a server) recited at a high-level of generality, does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amounts to: “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The additional element of: (i) an information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to execute a process, is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 28 and 31 of the PG Publication 2024/0233001A9 describing the first server “The server device 20 can be configured using an information processing apparatus (computer) such as a personal computer (PC), a workstation (WS), or a server machine.”) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional element of: (ii) the terminal and a display of the terminal, is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 26 and 38 of the PG Publication 2024/0233001A9 describing the terminal, “is, for example, a smartphone. The terminal 4 may be a communication terminal other than a smartphone. The terminal 4 may be a mobile terminal or a fixed terminal. Terminal 4 may be wirelessly connected to the network 1. Terminal 4 may be connected to network 1 by wire” and a display of the terminal) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional element of: (iii) the server device, is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 31 of the PG Publication describing the server device, “a server device (server machine) 20 that can operate as a first server 2 or a second server 3. The server device 20 can be configured using an information processing apparatus (computer) such as a personal computer (PC), a workstation (WS), or a server machine”) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (See Fig. 1), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claims 2 and 6 recite details in the claim limitations which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, described above with respect to claims 1, these judicial exceptions, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2 and 6 are ineligible.
Allowable over the Prior Art
Claims 1-2 and 6 are allowable over the prior art, but subject to the rejections above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The closest prior art for claim 1 includes U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0130778 to Cotton et al. (hereinafter “Cotton”). Cotton discloses limiting displayed contact management entries to a particular combination of sale or transaction types associated with a client, such as a lease. The system (1) retrieves financing, customer, and product information, (2) compares the customer's current financial terms for a financial arrangement related to a first product currently owned or leased by the customer, with potential financial terms related to a second product that would be available to the customer under a new financial arrangement; and (3) generates, for each customer for which the comparing shows that the new financial arrangement has terms favorable to the customer, an alert comprising information identifying the customer and indicating the terms favorable to the customer under the new arrangement, and (4) transmitting the alerts to the customer.
The next closest prior art for claim 1 includes U.S. Patent No. 8,504,470 to Chirehdast (hereinafter “Chirehdast”). Chirehdast discloses a pre-approval, fulfillment, and application process; and an application of credit report for a “Binding” Pre-Approval for Lending Products.
The next closest prior art for claim 1 includes “Pros and Cons of Battery Leasing, and Legal Concerns” by Angela Madathil, dated December 3, 2019 (hereinafter “Madathil”). Madathil discloses replacing a new battery pack for an electric vehicle.
The next closest prior art for claim 1 includes U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0357714 to So et al. (hereinafter “So”). So discloses that the credit information of a borrower may include missed installments (if any), and that the risk metrics with associated score values and confident measures are passed on to funders (lending institutions). Funders review the credit rating along with risk metrics and/or the associated score values, the confident measures to return a pricing if the lending institution/lender is willing to provide the loan for the unconfirmed asset/asset.
The next closest prior art for claim 1 includes U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0026916 to Wood et al. (hereinafter “Wood”). Wood discloses that contract terms may include payment terms and payment plans (e.g., lump sum or installments).
The next closest prior art for claim 1 includes U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0192417 to Kornfeld (hereinafter “Kornfeld”). Kornfeld discloses where the instant information is a "yes" value, the client proceeds to a loan disapproval and notification step.
The next closest prior art for claim 1 includes U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0371772 to Rueda et al. (hereinafter “Rueda”). Rueda discloses a loan payment history provides a record of each payment made by the borrower for an acquired loan; indicating whether each payment was on time or late. A risk factor is calculated by the back-end system using, at least in part, the loan payment history, wherein the risk factor provides a numerical or categorical representation of the borrower's creditworthiness. If the borrower misses the scheduled payment, then the back-end system decreases the tier score.
Examiner notes the combination of Cotton, Chirehdast, Madathil, So, Wood, Kornfeld, or Rueda do not teach the combination of the claim limitations of claim 1 (and therefore dependent claim 2 and 6).
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 Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is 571-270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9:30 AM – 6:30 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on Monday – Friday at 571-272-5587. 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.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628