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 Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on December 29, 2023. The applicant’s claim for benefit of provisional application 63436036, filed December 29, 2022, has been received and acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 are rejected 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 1-20: Claim 1 recites “compute a plurality of customer tiers.” The recited subject matter does not conform to the disclosure in such a manner that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being adequately described as the invention or as subject matter which Applicants actually had possession of at the time of the invention. A review of the disclosure does not reveal the manner in which the customer tiers are computed. It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicants’ failure to disclose any meaningful structure or algorithm as to how the customer tiers are computed raises questions as to whether Applicants truly had possession of this feature at the time of filing.
Further, claim 1 recites “generate a reduced set of data structures from the plurality of second data structures based at least on the plurality of customer tiers.” The recited subject matter does not conform to the disclosure in such a manner that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being adequately described as the invention or as subject matter which Applicants actually had possession of at the time of the invention. A review of the disclosure does not reveal the manner in which the second data structures are reduced based on the plurality of customer tiers. How are the tiers used to reduce the number of data structures? It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicants’ failure to disclose any meaningful structure or algorithm as to how the second data structures are reduced based on the plurality of customer tiers raises questions as to whether Applicants truly had possession of this feature at the time of filing.
Further, claim 1 recites “generate a plurality of third data structures further reduced from the reduced set of data structures.” The recited subject matter does not conform to the disclosure in such a manner that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being adequately described as the invention or as subject matter which Applicants actually had possession of at the time of the invention. A review of the disclosure does not reveal the manner in which the third data structures are generated from the reduced set of data structures. Applicants’ failure to disclose any meaningful structure or algorithm as to how the third data structures are generated/further reduced from the reduced set of data structures raises questions as to whether Applicants truly had possession of this feature at the time of filing.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1-20: Claim 1 recites “which when executed at the at least one processor.” It is unclear what is meant by “at the at least one processor.” Does this mean “by the at least one processor”? Or is this intending to include a manual process performed by a human with the assistance of the processor? For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting “at the at least one processor” as “by the at least one processor.”
Further, claim 1 recites “compute a plurality of first data structures” and “compute a plurality of second data structures” and “generate a plurality of third data structures further reduced from the reduced set of data structures.” It is unclear what is meant by a data structure in this context. Absent any special definition in Applicants’ disclosure, data structures are typically considered to be ways of formatting data, such as an array. However, they are not “computed” or “generated” from another set of data structures. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting “data structure” as “data.”
Further, claim 1 recites “each representative of an approximate deal structure.” The term “approximate” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the term “deal structure” is rendered indefinite by use of the term “approximate.” For purposes of examination, the Examiner is assigning little patentable weight to the term “approximate.”
Further, claim 1 recites “compute a plurality of customer tiers.” The metes and bounds of this claim limitation are unclear because a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot determine how to avoid infringement. As discussed above, the disclosure does not disclose any meaningful structure or algorithm as to how the customer tiers are computed.
Further, it is unclear what is meant by “customer tiers.” Are these tiers pertaining to one customer, for example, amount of loan that can be offered to a particular customer if the customer were in a particular tier? Or is this a plurality of tiers that the particular customer may be grouped into? In light of all the uncertainty, for purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 1 as reciting “generating a plurality of customer tiers.”
Further, claim 1 recites “generate a reduced set of data structures from the plurality of second data structures based at least on the plurality of customer tiers.” The metes and bounds of this claim limitation are unclear because a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot determine how to avoid infringement. As discussed above, the disclosure does not disclose any meaningful structure or algorithm as to how the second data structures are reduced based on the plurality of customer tiers.
Further, claim 1 recites “generate a plurality of third data structures further reduced from the reduced set of data structures.” The metes and bounds of this claim limitation are unclear because a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot determine how to avoid infringement. As discussed above, the disclosure does not disclose any meaningful structure or algorithm as to how the third data structures are generated/further reduced from the reduced set of data structures.
Further, claim 1 recites “each third data structure representing an approximate deal structure.” This limitation is unclear. First, it is unclear if this “approximate data structure” is intended to be the same “approximate data structure that was previously recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting them as representing different data structures. Further, as discussed above, the term “approximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the term “deal structure” is rendered indefinite by use of the term “approximate.” For purposes of examination, the Examiner is assigning little patentable weight to the term “approximate.”
Further, claim 1 recites “based on customer selection.” It is unclear what “selection” this is referring to. What does the customer select? It is further unclear if the selecting is intended to be part of the recited method or if it is an action that occurs externally to the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 1 as reciting that the customer has selected something related to the vehicle.
Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1 and 11.
Claims 4-8 and 14-8: Claim 4 recites “wherein the plurality of third data.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as reciting “wherein the plurality of third data structures.”
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 5-8 and 15-18 inherit the deficiency of claims 4 and 14.
Claims 5-8 and 15-18: Claim 5 recites “wherein the customer tier.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 5 as reciting “wherein each customer tier in the plurality of customer tiers”
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 inherit the deficiency of claims 5 and 15.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20: Claim 9 recites “wherein each of the plurality of customer tier.” For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 9 as reciting “wherein each of the plurality of customer tiers.”
Claims 10 and 20 inherit the deficiency of claims 9 and 19.
Claims 10 and 20: Claim 10 recites “wherein each of the plurality of customer tier is associated with a likelihood of approval by the lender.” This limitation is unclear. First, similar to claim 9 discussed above, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 10 as reciting “wherein each of the plurality of customer tiers.”
Further, it is unclear what is meant by “a likelihood of approval.” Approval of what? For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 10 as reciting “a likelihood of approval of a deal structure.”
Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 11-20: Claim 11 recites computing a plurality of first data structures, computing a plurality of second data structures, computing a plurality of customer tiers, generating a reduced set of data structures, generating a plurality of third data structures, and computing financing terms, but does not indicate what entity or entities performs each of these functions. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting each of these steps as being performed by a processor.
Claims 12-20 inherit the deficiencies of claim 11.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite a system and a method for determining financing terms for a vehicle for sale. With respect to claim 11, claim elements computing wholesale pricing terms for a plurality of vehicles, computing a deal for a plurality of vehicles, computing a plurality of customer tiers, generating deals based on the customer tiers, generating a reduced set of deals, and computing financing terms, as drafted, illustrate a series of steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a method of organizing a human activity, such as a commercial or legal interaction, i.e., sales activities. Additionally, the claim elements, as drafted, illustrate a series of steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process. That is, other than reciting (at least in claim 1) that a processor performs the method, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
Claim 1 recites similar limitations.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites a processor and a memory. These elements are recited at a high level of generality i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 1 recites a processor and a memory. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend from claims 1 and 11. Claims 2 and 12 are directed to normalizing information and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 3 and 13 are directed to the type of information and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 4 and 14 are directed to generating data based on customer data and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 5 and 15 are directed to computing the customer tiers based on customer data and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 6 and 16 are directed to generating data based on trade in values in the customer data and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 7 and 17 are directed to generating data based on a customer’s credit score and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 8 and 18 are directed to generating data based on a customer’s equity level and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 9 and 19 are directed to the customer tier being associated with a lender and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 10 and 20 are directed to the customer tiers being associated with a likelihood of approval by the lender and are further directed to the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0130127 A1 to Forrester et al. (hereinafter “Forrester”), in view of US 2018/0182031 A1 to Scopazzi (hereinafter “Scopazzi”).
Claims 1 and 11: Forrester discloses “systems and methods for providing personalized financing information…via a dealership website using an API associated with a financial service provider.” (See Forrester, at least Abstract). Forrester further discloses
at least one processor (See Forrester, at least para. [0037], financial service system includes a processor);
memory in communication with the at least one processor (See Forrester, at least para. [0038], financial service system includes memory storing software instructions to be executed by the processor);
instructions stored in the memory, which when executed at the at least one processor (See Forrester, at least para. [0038], financial service system includes memory storing software instructions to be executed by the processor) cause the system to:
compute a plurality of second data structures, each representative of an approximate deal structure for each vehicle in the plurality of vehicles based on a set of information (See Forrester, at least para. [0045], financial service system determines financing information associated with the at least one item using information provided in a loan request, buyer financial information, and vehicle information);
generate a plurality of third data structures further reduced from the reduced set of data structures, each third data structure representing an approximate deal structure for a vehicle in a reduced vehicle list from the plurality of vehicles (See Forrester, at least FIG. 9 and associated text; para. [0046], financial service system may prepare and provide the determined financing information to dealership system through the real-time API; determined financing information is integrated with item listings on the website; para. [0078], information for each listed vehicle includes vehicle loan terms such as listed price, monthly payment, interest rate, down payment; para. [0065], financial service system approves loan for some of the selected vehicles but not others); and
compute financing terms for one or more vehicles from the reduced vehicle list based on customer selection (See Forrester, at least FIG. 10 and associated text; para. [0079], user interface provides prospective buyer with determined financing information for an item and facilitates submission or adjustment of buyer financial information; loan information is presented including vehicle price, monthly payment, and interest rate; buyer may select trade-in link which allows the buyer to input or edit information relating to a trade-in vehicle; buyer can also choose to add an extended warranty at an additional cost of $6/month).
Forrester further discloses that the financial service system interacts with third party systems associated with entities that evaluate, monitor, and/or estimate the value of automotive vehicles such as Kelley Blue Book. (See Forrester, at least para. [0057]).
However, Forrester does not expressly disclose compute a plurality of first data structures, each representative of wholesale pricing terms for each vehicle in a plurality of vehicles based on information from a plurality of sources; compute a plurality of customer tiers; and generate a reduced set of data structures from the plurality of second data structures based at least on the plurality of customer tiers.
However, Scopazzi discloses a system and method for processing vehicle inventory information to “identify eligible vehicles that meet the purchaser’s requirements” and that also “describes how a financial institution determines the financing for vehicles.” (See Scopazzi, at least Abstract). Scopazzi further discloses:
compute a plurality of first data structures, each representative of wholesale pricing terms for each vehicle in a plurality of vehicles based on information from a plurality of sources (See Scopazzi, at least para. Vehicle selection functionality server is coupled to vehicle value providers such as Black Book, Blue Book, Gold Book, VMT Canada, Nada Guides , or other sources for providing estimated values of vehicles; para. [0045], vehicle selection functionality determines the value of the vehicle from at least one of the value providers using the vehicle information associated with the VIN);
compute a plurality of customer tiers (See Scopazzi, at least Table 2, Table 2 indicates maximum monthly payment and used car advances based on credit grouping for a particular financial institution; each group corresponds to a different level of credit worthiness; para. [0045], if a vehicle is valued at $10,000 and the purchaser is in Credit Group 1, the financial institution will provide a loan to the purchaser for 140% of the 10,000, i.e., $18000);
generate a reduced set of data structures from the plurality of second data structures based at least on the plurality of customer tiers (See Scopazzi, at least para. [0045] and Table 2, Table 2 indicates maximum monthly payment and used car advances based on credit grouping; if a vehicle is valued at $10,000 and the purchaser is in Credit Group 1, the financial institution will provide a loan to the purchaser for 140% of the 10,000, i.e., $18000; para. [0047], vehicle selection functionality will identify all vehicles that the purchaser can afford).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the vehicle financing system and method of Forrester the ability of compute a plurality of first data structures, each representative of wholesale pricing terms for each vehicle in a plurality of vehicles based on information from a plurality of sources; compute a plurality of customer tiers; and generate a reduced set of data structures from the plurality of second data structures based at least on the plurality of customer tiers as disclosed by Scopazzi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to identify “affordable vehicles for a purchaser from an inventory of vehicles.” (See Scopazzi, at least para. [0004]).
Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 3 and 13: The combination of Forrester and Scopazzi discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 discussed above.
Forrester further discloses wherein the set of information comprises the wholesale pricing information,…a set of equity bands, and a retailor profit mandate (See Forrester, at least para. [0045], financial service system determines financing information associated with the at least one item using information provided in a loan request, buyer financial information, and vehicle information; para. [0021], financing information is based on vehicle value; para. [0046], amount to finance takes into account any trade-in value, outstanding liens on the traded-in vehicle and down payment, i.e., each quantity represents one type of equity; para. [0045], loan terms and other financing information may be determined based on information regarding the dealer, the general economy, the financial service provider’s desired profit level for the particular loan or loans in general).
Forrester does not expressly disclose wherein the set of information comprises… a set of customer aggregate types.
However, Scopazzi discloses wherein the set of information comprises… a set of customer aggregate types (See Scopazzi, at least Table 2, Table 2 indicates maximum monthly payment and used car advances based on credit grouping for a particular financial institution; each group corresponds to a different level of credit worthiness; para. [0045], if a vehicle is valued at $10,000 and the purchaser is in Credit Group 1, the financial institution will provide a loan to the purchaser for 140% of the 10,000, i.e., $18000).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the vehicle financing system and method of Forrester the ability wherein the set of information comprises… a set of customer aggregate types as disclosed by Scopazzi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to identify “affordable vehicles for a purchaser from an inventory of vehicles.” (See Scopazzi, at least para. [0004]).
Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 4 and 14: The combination of Forrester and Scopazzi discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 discussed above.
Forrester further discloses wherein the plurality of third data are generated based on customer data (See Forrester, at least para. [0045], loan terms are calculated based on buyer financial information and vehicle information).
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 5 and 15: The combination of Forrester and Scopazzi discloses all the limitations of claims 4 and 14 discussed above.
Forrester does not expressly disclose wherein the customer tier is generated based in part on the customer data.
However, Scopazzi discloses wherein the customer tier is generated based in part on the customer data (See Scopazzi, at least Table 2, Table 2 indicates maximum monthly payment and used car advances based on credit grouping, which is based on credit worthiness; each group corresponds to a different level of credit worthiness; para. [0043], a first purchaser with relatively good credit may be loaned up to 140% while a second purchaser with relatively poor credit may only be loaned up to 120% of the vehicle value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the vehicle financing system and method of Forrester the ability wherein the customer tier is generated based in part on the customer data as disclosed by Scopazzi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to identify “affordable vehicles for a purchaser from an inventory of vehicles.” (See Scopazzi, at least para. [0004]).
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 6 and 16: The combination of Forrester and Scopazzi discloses all the limitations of claims 5 and 15 discussed above.
Forrester further discloses wherein the reduced set of data structures from the plurality of second data structures are generated based on trade in values in the customer data (See Forrester, at least para. [0045], loan terms are calculated based on buyer financial information and vehicle information; para. [0043], buyer information may include trade-in equity).
Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 7 and 17: The combination of Forrester and Scopazzi discloses all the limitations of claims 6 and 16 discussed above.
Forrester further discloses wherein the plurality of third data structures is further reduced from the reduced set of data structures based on a customer's credit score (See Forrester, at least para. [0045], loan terms are calculated based on buyer financial information and vehicle information; para. [0061], loan terms based on the prospective buyer's creditworthiness).
Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 8 and 18: The combination of Forrester and Scopazzi discloses all the limitations of claims 6 and 16 discussed above.
Forrester further discloses wherein the plurality of third data structures is further reduced from the reduced set of data structures based on a customer's equity level (See Forrester, at least para. [0045], loan terms are calculated based on buyer financial information and vehicle information; para. [0043], buyer information may include trade-in equity).
Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 9 and 19: The combination of Forrester and Scopazzi discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 discussed above.
Forrester does not expressly disclose wherein each of the plurality of customer tier is associated with a lender.
However, Scopazzi discloses wherein each of the plurality of customer tier is associated with a lender (See Scopazzi, at least para. [0045] and Table 2, Table 2 indicates maximum monthly payment and used car advances based on credit grouping for a particular financial institution; if a vehicle is valued at $10,000 and the purchaser is in Credit Group 1, the financial institution will provide a loan to the purchaser for 140% of the 10,000, i.e., $18000).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the vehicle financing system and method of Forrester the ability wherein each of the plurality of customer tier is associated with a lender as disclosed by Scopazzi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to identify “affordable vehicles for a purchaser from an inventory of vehicles.” (See Scopazzi, at least para. [0004]).
Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 10 and 20: The combination of Forrester and Scopazzi discloses all the limitations of claims 9 and 19 discussed above.
Forrester does not expressly disclose wherein each of the plurality of customer tier is associated with a likelihood of approval by the lender.
However, Scopazzi discloses wherein each of the plurality of customer tier is associated with a likelihood of approval by the lender (See Scopazzi, at least para. [0045] and Table 2, Table 2 indicates maximum monthly payment and used car advances based on credit grouping; if a vehicle is valued at $10,000 and the purchaser is in Credit Group 1, the financial institution will provide a loan to the purchaser for 140% of the 10,000, i.e., $18000; para. [0047], vehicle selection functionality will identify all vehicles that the purchaser can afford).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the vehicle financing system and method of Forrester the ability wherein each of the plurality of customer tier is associated with a likelihood of approval by the lender as disclosed by Scopazzi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to identify “affordable vehicles for a purchaser from an inventory of vehicles.” (See Scopazzi, at least para. [0004]).
Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrester in view of Scopazzi as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 2018/0204282 A1 to Painter et al. (hereinafter “Painter”).
The combination of Forrester and Scopazzi discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 discussed above.
Neither Forrester nor Scopazzi expressly discloses wherein the instructions when executed further cause the system to: normalize the information from the plurality of sources.
However, Painter discloses an “automotive data processing system…[that] provides a comprehensive computer system for automating and facilitating a purchase process including financing qualification, inventory selection, document generation and transaction finalization. Using a client application…executing on a client device…, a consumer user may apply for financing, search dealer inventory, select a vehicle of interest from a dealer and review and execute documents related to the purchase of the vehicle, and execute automated clearing housing (ACH) transactions through automotive data processing system…to purchase the vehicle from the dealership.” (See Painter, at least para. [0036]). Painter further discloses wherein the instructions when executed further cause the system to: normalize the information from the plurality of sources (See Painter, at least para. [0108], automotive data processing system receives inventory feeds from various inventory systems; inventory feeds include inventory data for inventory associated with registered (on boarded) dealers and pricing information; different dealers may use different data formats; automotive data processing system applies rules to extract inventory information from the various feeds and normalizes the data into a single format).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the vehicle financing system and method of Forrester and the vehicle financing system and method of Scopazzi the ability wherein the instructions when executed further cause the system to: normalize the information from the plurality of sources as disclosed by Painter since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to overcome “the fragmented and incomplete technologies used in the vehicle purchase process” and the high transaction costs that result from it. (See Painter, at least para. [0010]).
Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
"An intelligent tool for all-to-all sales on the Internet: Platform for compilation of commercial offers and requests for companies and customers," by R. Fasuga, P. Stoklasa and M. Němec, 2015 12th International Joint Conference on e-Business and Telecommunications (ICETE), Colmar, France, 2015, pp. 263-270
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Anne M Georgalas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689