DETAILED ACTION
Restriction Requirement
1.Upon reviewing the Applicant’s response filed 08/25/2025, which the Examiner does not necessarily agree with and reserves the right to reinstate the restriction requirement if the claims begin to diverge significantly, given the current broad scope of the claims, the Examiner has examined all of the claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement filed 11/12/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. They have been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The Applicant is requested to provide legible copies of each of the NPL documents.
Status of Claims
3. This is a Non-final office action in response to communication received on August 25, 2025. Claims 1-9 filed 11/12/2023 are pending and examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Next using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidances (hereinafter 2019 PEG) the rejection as follows has been applied.
Under step 1, analysis is based on MPEP 2106.03, as per claims 1-9, regarding claims 1-3 and 7-9, the Applicant recites marketplaces, namely community-based electric vehicle (hereinafter EV) marketplace (claims 1-3) and community-based lending marketplace (claims 7-9). However, the Applicant has failed to properly define the physical components (i.e. a computer processor, hardware, etc.) of such marketplaces in the claim recitation. Accordingly, the Examiner is interpreting such recitations as computer code, per se. ([0003] note “Community-based Electric Vehicles Marketplace," is designed to address the need for a collaborative platform where lessors and lessees of electric vehicles can interact seamlessly”; [0005] “FIG. 2 shows the Electric Vehicle Marketplace Applications”; [0008] “FIG. 5 shows the Blockchain Lending Marketplace Applications”). Indeed, computer code, per se, is not eligible for patent protection. If Applicant were to amended the claim 1 to positively recite a physical component, such as a device e.g. a computer and/or a processor, this part of the 101 rejection would be withdrawn if such device is supported by the as-filed disclosure. Thus, each claim 1-3 and 7-9, on its face, is NOT directed to one of the statutory categories (i.e., useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of 35 U.S.C. §101. As such claims 1-3 and 7-9 are not evaluated further under 101 analysis as they fail step 1.
Claims 4-6 are a method. Thus, each claim 4-6, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories (i.e., useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Under Step 2A Prong One, per MPEP 2106.04, prong one asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."
Next, per 2019 PEG, to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (I) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (II) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG. If the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I, analysis should proceed to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
(I) An abstract idea as recited per abstract recitation of claims 4-6 [i.e. recitation with the exception of additional elements as noted and analyzed under step 2A prong two and step 2B inquiries below, i.e. under step 2A prong one the Examiner considered claim recitation other than the additional elements (which once again are expressly noted below) to be the abstract recitation] (II) is that of connecting lessors and lessees of vehicles in a community based vehicle marketplace which is certain methods of organizing human activity.
The phrase "Certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to 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). Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
Therefore, the identified limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of 2019 PEG, thus analysis now proceeds to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, per MPEP 2106.04, prong two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’).
Next, per 2019 PEG, Prong Two represents a change from prior guidance. The analysis under Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (I) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (II) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.
Accordingly, the examiner will evaluate whether the claims recite one or more additional element(s) that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception by considering them both individually and as a whole.
The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 4-6 at least are electric vehicles, automatically, and notifying (per claim 4). Remaining claims either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computer components. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed Figs. 2-3 and their associated disclosure. Further, the processor analyzes captured and transmitted user data to ascertain that user is distracted based on video having data indicating that user is having a conversation, and based on the analysis is able to output a result such as a tailored ad. The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as a network based platform, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of connecting lessors and lessees of vehicles in a community based vehicle marketplace which is certain methods of organizing human activity (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Under step 2B, per MPEP 2106.05, as it applies to claims 4-6, the Examiner will evaluate whether the foregoing additional elements analyzed under prong two, when considered both individually and as a whole provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). The abstract idea of managing loyalty points earned through plurality of reward programs by allowing one to perform loyalty points exchange, which is certain methods of organizing human activity implemented using mathematical concepts - has not been applied in an eligible manner. The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea are simply being utilized as generic tools to execute "apply it" instructions as they are described at a high level of generality. Additionally, the abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Id. or note step 2A prong two).
Regarding, insignificant solution activity such as data gathering or post solution activity such as notifying, the Examiner relies on court cases and publications that demonstrate that such a way to gather data and/or display information is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(i) (a) The sub-grouping "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
An example of a claim reciting managing personal behavior is Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The patentee in this case claimed methods comprising storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device. 792 F.3d. at 1367, 115 USPQ2d at 1639-40. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting)", which "is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the Supreme Court and our court involving methods of organizing human activity." 792 F.3d. at 1367-68, 115 USPQ2d at 1640.”; and (b) collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected (FairWarning) [similarly here when a new member is added to a vehicle community, a notification is provided to other members of the community].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Abhyanker et al. (Pub. No.: US2016/0027307) referred to hereinafter as Abhyanker.
As per claims 1 and 4, Abhyanker discloses
as per claim 1, a community-based electric vehicle marketplace, comprising (see [0446]-[0447]):
as per claim 4, a method for connecting lessors and lessees of electric vehicles in a community-based electric vehicle marketplace, comprising (see [0446]-[0447]):
as per claim limitations of claims 1 and 4,
(a) providing an electric vehicle marketplace for lessors to list electric vehicles for rent (see [0451]);
(b) automatically associating lessors with specific vehicle communities upon listing a vehicle (see [0478]-[0479]; [0485]);
(c)notifying community members of new additions, including lessees who become part of a vehicle community upon renting (see [0479]); and
(d) facilitating the sharing of various content types related to electric vehicle rentals and other relevant interests within the community-based electric vehicle marketplace (see [0487]).
As per claims 2 and 5, Abhyanker discloses the claim limitations of claims 1 and 4 respectively. Abhyanker discloses further comprising presenting targeted product advertisements to community members based on their interests and interactions (see [0106]-[0107]; [0496]).
As per claims 3 and 6, Abhyanker discloses the claim limitations of claims 1 and 4 respectively. Abhyanker discloses wherein the community-based electric vehicle marketplace incorporates gamification elements to enhance user engagement and participation (see [0512]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Benton et al. (Pub. No.: US2023/0088229) referred to hereinafter as Benton.
As per claim 7, Benton discloses a community-based lending marketplace, comprising (see [0004]):
(a) a lending marketplace allowing borrowers to list borrowing requests (see [0006]; [0095]);
(b) a community-based social network automatically associating borrowers with specific lending communities based on loan categories (see [0008]; [0088]; [0100]-[0101]);
(c) a notification system alerting community members of new borrowing requests, including lenders who become part of a lending community upon accepting a request (see [0086]-[0088]); and
(d) a content sharing platform within the community-based lending marketplace for sharing various content types related to borrowing, lending, and other relevant interests (see [0070]-[0075]; [0088]; [0100]-[0102]).
As per claim 8, Benton discloses the claim limitations of claim 7. Benton discloses further comprising a targeted advertisement system presenting product advertisements to community members based on their interests and interactions (see [0071]-[0074]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Benton in view of Pratt (Patent No.: US 11,062,363).
As per claim 9, Pratt discloses the claim limitation of claim 7. Benton suggests interactions within a community; however Benton expressly does not teach wherein the community based social network incorporates gamification elements to enhance user engagement and participation. Pratt teaches wherein the community based
social network incorporates gamification elements to enhance user engagement and
participation (see col 10 lines 2-14, 28-39; col 16 line 55-col 19 line 3).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify foregoing suggestions of Benton in view of the foregoing teachings of Pratt with motivation to service or assist with loan via gamified community based crowdfunding by supporting a cause and/or desire to be entertained, see col 3 lines 7-10.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and all the references on PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited should be duly noted by the Applicant as they can be subsequently used during prosecution, at least note the following:
- US20160195404 Peer to peer car sharing social-graph configurator
[0036] The server 227 may include the capability to offer a peer-to-peer (P2P) car sharing social-graph configurator 225. A social graph may help depict relationships between the various users and/or vehicles to facility in car sharing, among other things. The social-graph may indicate the relationship between the vehicle, the current driver, potential drivers, road-network, and potential meeting-spots within a community. The social graph configurator may utilize the various data, including vehicle access control 215, vehicle data 219, and local data 221, and user data 223 to help facilitate preparation of the social graph. Once the social-graph is created or updated, car sharing may be facilitated by offering recommended vehicles and locations. The social-graph configurator may be constantly updated to work dynamically. The social-graph may be output in a graphical format on a vehicle display, a nomadic device display, a message/email to a user, a display kiosk, etc. The social-graph may also manifest itself in the background where it may interact with other social network data to automatically suggest novel communities or new car sharing partners based on shared interests and mobility activities
[0043] For example, rain/snow, high-low temperature, advisory warnings, high winds, and other data. All of the local data may help facilitate ideal meeting points or nodes for vehicles and potential renters/drivers to meet.
[0052] The closed community may include a common set of rules that may be used within the community (e.g. the city, state, nation, or world). The rules may include etiquette or rules for the social graph, as well as a recommend practice within the community. While the rules may be utilized for the social graphs, exceptions may exist for the community. In alternative embodiments, the rules may be dynamic and change based on various factors (e.g. user-feedback, vehicle demand, etc.). Some examples of rules may include obeying all traffic & safety regulations, returning a vehicle with a specific threshold of fuel, maximum duration of continuous usage, maximum number of check-outs, minimum expectations of interior cleanliness (e.g. no trash inside); trunk (or “boot”) is clean; on time return; immediate notification if there is any physical damage or an accident; payment of all parking tickets, etc.
- US20120310823A1 See "social network fundraising system receives a business funding request associated with one or more traits from an entrepreneur/fundee. The system selects potential/candidate funders based at least partly on a ranking corresponding to their respective relationship to the fundee. The system sends a request message successively and preferentially to groups of one or more candidate funders according to the ranking order until funding offers are received from one or more candidate funders. The system sends received offers and information identifying the funders to the entrepreneur, and may facilitate automatic negotiation between each potential funder and the entrepreneur. The ranking order may correspond to statistical similarity between traits associated with a request and traits associated with a candidate funder, as well as to social similarity between the entrepreneur and candidate funder resulting from analysis of social network profiles. The system may facilitate displaying funding status on a funder's social network profile"
- US11379915 System and method of an automated agent to automatically implement loan activities
Note "an automated agent to automatically implement loan activities includes a data collection circuit structured to receive data related to at least one of a plurality of parties to a loan; a smart contract circuit structured to create a smart lending contract for the loan; and an automated agent circuit structured to automatically perform a loan-related action in response to the received data, wherein the loan-related action is a change in an interest rate for the loan, and wherein the smart contract circuit is further structured to update the smart lending contract with the changed interest rate"
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIPEN M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 08:30-17:00 EST.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571)270-3948. 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.
/DIPEN M PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621