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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to applicant’s amendments to and response for Application #18/416,170, filed on 12/17/2025.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-13 are now pending and have been examined.
Claims 2 and 4-5 have been cancelled by the applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 is 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. Specifically, the claim includes the limitation “settle the contract application remotely from the vehicle dealer.” However, the application is being settled online via an application. How is the settlement “remote?” Is it that the user is physically remote? Remote from a dealer application? The examiner cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of what seems to be a limitation regarding physical location with an online electronic settlement which does not previously mention any kind of user location as part of the process. Therefore, the claims does not clearly and distinctly claim the applicant’s invention and appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
Per Step 1 of the analysis, the claims are analyzed to determine if they are directed to statutory subject matter. Claim 1 claims an “information processing device.” Figure 1 and paragraph [0015] of the filed specification that this device is such as a computer or server. Therefore, the claim is interpreted as an apparatus. An apparatus is a statutory category for patentability.
Per Step 2A, Prong 1 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims recite an abstract idea or eligible subject matter. In the instant case, the independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claims 1, 4, and 5 are directed to “register identification information that links personal information of the user with purchase information including a sales condition and a payment condition of a product to be purchased by the user, prompt the user to apply for the contract application based on the purchase information, receiving an input by the user regarding the contract application to settle the contract remotely from the vehicle dealer.” Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, namely “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, the claims recite the human activity of “agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations” (see MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (II)). User purchase and personal data is registered, the user is prompted to make an application for a contract based on the data, and the application for the contract is received and settled. The claims use known generic recitations of technology, like a mobile terminal, a URL link, and a display page to automate the abstract idea using a computer. Therefore, the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea, namely “certain methods of organizing human activity- agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations.”
Per Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims include “an information processing device,” “a communication interface,” “a terminal device of a vehicle dealer,” “a mobile terminal owned by a user,” “a storage unit,” “a control unit implemented by a processor,” “the processor,” “a network,” and “a display screen of a mobile terminal.” However, these additional elements are considered generic recitations of a technical element and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The additional elements also include “generating of a link…the link being a deep link including a URL.” The generating of a deep link including a URL is considered a generic recitation of a technical element, and the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known at the time of filing of the application to generate a link that will cause a display on a screen for user access on a device. Further, the link and display screen are only automating manual presentation of an application for a contract that a user would manually fill out. Therefore, this additional element is not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements also include a dedicated page displayed on the display screen of a mobile terminal and added by amendment “transmit a notification notifying completion of settlement of the contract application to the mobile terminal via the network”. This element is considered “receiving or transmitting of data over a network,” included in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “sending messages over a network,” citing OIP Techs v Amazon.com, “computer receives and sends information over a network,” citing buySAFE v Google. Therefore, this additional element is not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Per Step 2B of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea by demonstrating an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements of the claims include “an information processing device,” “a communication interface,” “a terminal device of a vehicle dealer,” “a mobile terminal owned by a user,” “a storage unit,” “a control unit implemented by a processor,” “the processor,” “a network,” and “a display screen of a mobile terminal.” However, these additional elements are considered generic recitations of a technical element and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The additional elements also include “generating of a link…the link being a deep link including a URL.” The generating of a deep link including a URL is considered a generic recitation of a technical element, and the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known at the time of filing of the application to generate a link that will cause a display on a screen for user access on a device. Further, the link and display screen are only automating manual presentation of an application for a contract that a user would manually fill out. Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more. The additional elements also include a dedicated page displayed on the display screen of a mobile terminal and added by amendment “transmit a notification notifying completion of settlement of the contract application to the mobile terminal via the network”. This element is considered “receiving or transmitting of data over a network,” included in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “sending messages over a network,” citing OIP Techs v Amazon.com, “computer receives and sends information over a network,” citing buySAFE v Google. Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claim is still considered to be directed to an abstract idea as the claim steps in the ordered combination simply recite the logical steps for registering user purchase and personal data, prompting the user to make an application for a contract based on the data, and receiving and settling the application. Therefore, the ordered combination does not lead to a determination of significantly more.
When considering the dependent claims, claim 3 is considered part of the abstract idea, as the type of contract application being a car loan contract does not change the analysis. Claims 6 and 7 are considered conventional computer functioning as discussed above regarding the use of the URL deep link, and the display on the vehicle dealer homepage is considered “receiving and/or transmittal of the over a network” and therefore conventional computer functioning. Claims 8 and 10 are considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as the type of user information or described sales condition does not change the analysis. Claim 9 is considered “receiving, processing, and storage of data,” listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (iii-iv) as an example of conventional computer functioning- see “storing and retrieving information in a memory” citing Versata Dev Grp v SAP and OIP Techs v Amazon.com; see also “electronic recordkeeping” and “updating an activity log,” citing Alice Corp. and Ultramercial. Therefore, this limitation is not considered significantly more. Claims 11-13 are considered conventional computer functioning, as launching an application on a mobile terminal; or any terminal simply automates what could be done manually in person using conventional generic technology, and the page being displayed in response to a suer input is conventional interaction with a computer screen and not an improvement to the technical aspects of user inputting a response on a terminal screen. Therefore, these additional elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1, 3, and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. Vs. CLS Bank International et al., 2014 (please reference link to updated publicly available Alice memo at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf as well as the USPTO January 2019 Updated Patent Eligibility Guidance.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putnam, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0211916 A1 in view of Rule, et al., Patent No. 10,467,622 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Putnam teaches:
An information processing device comprising:
a communication unit including a communication interface and configured to communicate with a terminal device of a vehicle dealer and a mobile terminal owned by a user via a network (see Figure 3B and [0042]-[0044]; see also at least [0016]-[0017], and [0023] in which the application system is in contact with the dealership servers and databases over a network)
a storage unit configured to store programs including a program for settling a contract application (see Figures 2B-3B and [0040]-[0046])
a control unit implemented by a processor that executes the program stored in the storage unit, wherein the processor is configured to: (see Figure 3B and [0042]-[0044])
register identification information that links personal information of the user with purchase information including a sales condition and a payment condition of a product to be purchased by the user (see [0015]-[0016], [0022], and [0028]-[0029] in which a user engages an application and submits vehicle, user, and other information for a vehicle loan and their information is associated with a specific vehicle and specific financing for the vehicle)
generate a link including the identification information and information for causing a transition of a display screen of the mobile terminal to a dedicated page within a predetermined application installed on the mobile terminal (see [0022] in which a QR code links to the auto buying assistant application that generates a display of a loan contract on the user’s mobile device)
prompt, in a state where the dedicated page is displayed on the mobile terminal based on the link, the user to apply for the contract application based on the purchase information (see [0021], [0029], and [0049] in which the user is displayed a loan application and is able to make the application for the loan contract via their mobile device)
execute the program for settling the contract application in response to receiving an input by the user regarding the contract application on the dedicated page to settle the contract application remotely from the vehicle dealer (see Figure 5, [0021], [0029], and [0049]-[0051] in which the user via the mobile terminal application interface enters information, accepts the loan, and the agreement is confirmed)
Putnam, however, does not appear to specify:
the link being a deep link including a URL
Rule teaches:
the link being a deep link including a URL (see Column 4, line 59-Column 5, line 24 in which a link in a page accessed through an application is a deep link to a URL; see also Column 6, lines 14-17 in which the application can facilitate accessing such as a loan request)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rule with Putnam because Putnam already teaches a loan application link as a QR code, and a deep link including a URL would allow for another form of access link that might be more compatible with certain formats and access devices.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Putnam and Rule teaches:
the information processing device according to claim 1
Putnam further teaches:
wherein the contract is a car loan contract (see at least [0014]-[0015], [0022], and [0028]-[0029] in which the application contract is an application for a vehicle loan)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Putnam and Rule teaches:
the information processing device according to claim 1
Rule further teaches:
wherein the identification information is stored in the storage unit and is updated using information acquired from the network (see Column 3, line 66-Column 4, line 25, Column 10, lines 1-16, and Column 14, lines 16-32)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rule with Putnam because Putnam already teaches user information submitted for a loan application, but does not specifically describe the storing of it, and storing and updating the personal information would allow for seamless further use in such as a loan application without the user needing to freshly provide it all.
Claim 6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putnam, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0211916 A1 in view of Rule, et al., Patent No. 10,467,622 B1 and in further view of Cox, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0268480 A1.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Putnam and Rule teaches:
the information processing device according to claim 1
Putnam and Rule, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein the URL is provided on a homepage of the vehicle dealer displayed on the mobile terminal
Cox teaches:
wherein the URL is provided on a homepage of the vehicle dealer displayed on the mobile terminal (see Figures 2-4 and 8E-8H, and [0067]-[0070] and [0079]-[0083]; see also [0026]-[0027] which makes clear it is a mobile application)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox with Putnam and Rule because Putnam already teaches a mobile loan application link as a QR code, and Rule teaches a deep link including a URL, and the link on a dealer website would allow for easy access for the user while they are looking at dealer inventory and while already interacting with a dealer electronically.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Putnam and Rule teaches:
the information processing device according to claim 1
Putnam and Rule, further teaches:
wherein the predetermined application is launched on the mobile terminal and the dedicated page is displayed, in response to an input by the user to the URL
Cox teaches:
wherein the predetermined application is launched on the mobile terminal and the dedicated page is displayed, in response to an input by the user to the URL (see Figures 3-4 and 8E-8H, and [0067]-[0070] and [0079]-[0083] in which a webpage for inventory for a particular dealer includes a link to applying for a loan with a financial institution for that particular car for that particular dealer; see also [0070]-[0073] in which the user information including for a loan application including financial institution and auto information is predetermined; see also [0026]-[0027] which makes clear it is a mobile application)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox with Putnam and Rule because Rule already teaches a mobile application for such as auto loans, and a URL link from a webpage for purchasing a car from a dealer would allow the user to understand their ability to easily get the loan for the vehicle using their own mobile device and already available information while still in the purchase decision process.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Putnam, Rule, and Cox teaches:
the information processing device according to claim 6
Cox further teaches:
wherein the predetermined application is launched on the mobile terminal and the dedicated page is displayed, in response to an input by the user to the URL (see Figures 3-4 and 8E-8H, and [0067]-[0070] and [0079]-[0083] in which a webpage for inventory for a particular dealer includes a link to applying for a loan with a financial institution for that particular car for that particular dealer; see also [0070]-[0073] in which the user information including for a loan application including financial institution and auto information is predetermined; see also [0026]-[0027] which makes clear it is a mobile application)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox with Putnam and Rule because Rule already teaches a mobile application for such as auto loans, and a URL link from a webpage for purchasing a car from a dealer would allow the user to understand their ability to easily get the loan for the vehicle using their own mobile device and already available information while still in the purchase decision process.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putnam, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0211916 A1 in view of Rule, et al., Patent No. 10,467,622 B1 and in further view of Cohen, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0317015 A1.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Putnam and Rule teaches:
the information processing device according to claim 1
Putnam and Rule, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein the URL is sent from the terminal device of the vehicle dealer to the mobile terminal by an e-mail
Cohen teaches:
wherein the URL is sent from the terminal device of the vehicle dealer to the mobile terminal by an e-mail (see [0060] in which a link in an email is accessed for an automobile loan application with associated user information)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox with Putnam and Rule because Putnam already teaches a mobile loan application link as a QR code, and Rule teaches a deep link including a URL, and receiving a link in an email allows for another format for easy access to a loan application in a more secure type of environment.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putnam, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0211916 A1 in view of Rule, et al., Patent No. 10,467,622 B1 and in further view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Putnam and Rule teaches:
the information processing device according to claim 6
Putnam further teaches:
wherein the personal information includes name, address, and age of the user (see [0028])
Putnam and Rule, however, does not appear to specify:
a login ID and a password for logging into the homepage of the vehicle dealer
The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the electronic commerce arts for personal information to include a login ID and password for a homepage. Companies such as banks, retail, and other online presences have done so for a decade prior to the effective filing date of the application.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a login ID and a password for logging into the homepage of the vehicle dealer with Putnam and Rule because Rule teaches a deep link including a URL to a loan page in a dealership homepage and web presence, , and a login ID and password would facilitate easy access and association with the user.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putnam, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0211916 A1 in view of Rule, et al., Patent No. 10,467,622 B1 and in further view of Gupta, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0050956 A1.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Putnam and Rule teaches:
the information processing device according to claim 1
Putnam and Rule, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein the sales condition includes a sales price and a delivery date of the product, and the payment condition indicates whether payment is with cash or with a car loan
Gupta teaches:
wherein the sales condition includes a sales price and a delivery date of the product, and the payment condition indicates whether payment is with cash or with a car loan (see [0028]-[0030] in which the vehicle transaction information includes price, delivery date, and cash or financing)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Gupta with Putnam and Rule because Putnam already teaches a mobile loan application link as a QR code, and Rule teaches a deep link including a URL, and the specific purchase information already being available would allow for better facilitation of links for access to the user.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putnam, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0211916 A1 in view of Rule, et al., Patent No. 10,467,622 B1 and in further view of Cohen, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0317015 A1 and in further view of Cox, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0268480 A1.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Putnam, Rule, and Cohen teaches:
the information processing device according to claim 7
Putnam, Rule, and Cohen, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein the predetermined application is launched on the mobile terminal and the dedicated page is displayed, in response to an input by the user to the URL
Cox teaches:
wherein the predetermined application is launched on the mobile terminal and the dedicated page is displayed, in response to an input by the user to the URL (see Figures 3-4 and 8E-8H, and [0067]-[0070] and [0079]-[0083] in which a webpage for inventory for a particular dealer includes a link to applying for a loan with a financial institution for that particular car for that particular dealer; see also [0070]-[0073] in which the user information including for a loan application including financial institution and auto information is predetermined; see also [0026]-[0027] which makes clear it is a mobile application)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox with Putnam and Rule because Rule already teaches a mobile application for such as auto loans, and a URL link from a webpage for purchasing a car from a dealer would allow the user to understand their ability to easily get the loan for the vehicle using their own mobile device and already available information while still in the purchase decision process.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 101:
Regarding the applicant’s argument on pages 12-13 of the response that the claims as amended “do not merely automate contract application procedures, rather the claimed invention provides a distinct improvement to the technical field of systems for contract settlement using mobile terminals”:
The examiner first points out that “settlement of contracts” is not a technical field but a legal/commercial activity. Just because there is a “system” involved does not make it a technical field. More importantly, the applicant makes the examiner’s point in stating that the alleged technical field is settlement of contracts USING a mobile terminal. The mobile terminal is used to automate the abstract idea of contract settlement USING a mobile terminal. The claims describe a conventional facilitation of car loan contract application and settlement using a mobile terminal, a URL link, and a homepage of a vehicle dealer. These automations automate what would normally be done manually and in person at a vehicle dealership with the aid of pen and paper. There is no technological improvement. In fact, vehicle dealers have for at least a decade used third parties for loans that are often applied for in-house on such as a computer terminal.
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments in light of the amendments to the claims are not persuasive and the rejection is sustained.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 103:
The applicant’s arguments have been considered in light of the applicant’s amendments to the claims but are MOOT in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant amendment(s) necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-4:30pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626