DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 30 March 2026.
Claims 1-9 were previously elected, Claims 10-20 were withdrawn and are canceled.
Claims 1-9 have been amended.
Claims 21-27 are added as new.
Claims 1-9 and 21-27 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome a 101 rejection. These rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection under 103, see below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 30 March 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101 applicant argues that the claims do not fall within the organizing human activity grouping and that the rejection ignores specific technical limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims necessitated updated grounds of rejection under 101. The claim is grouped as reciting a commercial interaction including a business relation, i.e. the ability to schedule vehicle maintenance services. The additional elements merely apply the claim limitations with a generic computing element, generically link the steps to a particular technical environment and/or establish insignificant extra solution activity (i.e. receiving, retrieving, transmitting, providing). The additional elements are merely invoked as tools to perform the steps and simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or in a particular computer environment does not integrate the claims into a practical application. The additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception 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. See updated grounds of rejection set forth below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Applicant argues that none of Shah, Weger or Kelly disclose generating reminders based on integrated real time vehicle operational data, mileage estimates and recall bulletins in a unified determination process that screens both types of data against stored service reminders. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is more specific than the limitations set forth in the claims. The claims do not establish integrating real time vehicle operational data with recall bulletin data. Nor do the claims establish a unified determination process that screens both types of data jointly. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires receiving vehicle information, querying a service bulletin server to retrieve recall bulletin data, and determining that a vehicle is due for maintenance by screen the vehicle information and the recall bulletin data against one or more stored service reminders. The claims do not recite any limitations of integrating the two types of data into a single repository nor do the claims or specification outline exactly how the screening process is performed. Thus the broadest reasonable interpretation of determining that maintenance is due by screening vehicle info and bulletin data against stored reminders requires only that the two types of data can be compared to stored service reminders, which is taught by the applied Kelly reference. See new grounds of rejection set forth below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
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 and 21-27 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. The amendments to Claims 1 and new claims 21-27 include receiving by the reminder server, querying the service bulletin server, screening information and data against stored reminders, describe last known mileage and associated dates, estimating current mileage against elapsed time and average mileage, generating a reminder message with a link, identifying components and generating maintenance actions, and recall bulletin data including government mandated recalls or manufacturer recommended bulletins. The instant application’s specification does not support any of these limitations or amendments to the claims. 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 1-9 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in MPEP 2106.03, the claim 1 is directed to a method which is a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One - MPEP 2106.04 - The claims 1 and 25 recite a computer implemented method and system including servers and at least one database for receiving vehicle information by the reminder server, querying a service bulletin server to retrieve recall bulletin data for a vehicle, determining that the vehicle is due for maintenance by screening the vehicle information and the recall bulletin data against one or more stored service reminders, providing a request to schedule the maintenance, receiving an indication that the service has been scheduled and providing an indication that the maintenance has been scheduled.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing commercial interactions – including… business relations for scheduling special purpose vehicle maintenance). Here, the claim has a description of steps for receiving and retrieving data, determining that a vehicle is due for maintenance by screen receiving information and retrieved data against one or more stored service reminders, providing a request to schedule maintenance, receiving an indication of scheduling and providing an indication of scheduling. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computing environment including a reminder server in communication with a database and devices does not take the claims out of the abstract idea grouping. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two - MPEP 2106.04 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 25 recites additional elements in the limitations for:
receiving, by the reminder server, vehicle information…
querying, by the reminder server, a service bulletin server to retrieve recall bulletin data…
determining, by the reminder server, that the special purpose vehicle is due for vehicle maintenance by screening the vehicle information and the recall bulletin data against one or more stored service reminders;
providing/transmitting, to a computing device of a service provider, a request to schedule
receiving from the computing device of the service provider, an indication that the service has been scheduled and
providing an indication to a device of the user that the maintenance has been scheduled
The reminder server, database and computing device of a service provider and device of the user are recited at a high level of generality and merely describe a computer implemented environment. The receiving, querying, providing, and transmitting steps are also considered to amount to mere data gathering and transmission which are forms of insignificant extra solution activity. The additional elements of the reminder server determining, is considered “apply it [abstract idea] on a computer” (See MPEP 2106.05f; see also MPEP 2106.05h field of use).
The components/additional elements are merely invoked as tools to perform the steps and simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or in a particular computer environment does not integrate the claims into a practical application. The additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception 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. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B in MPEP 2106.05 - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer, receiving, querying, determining, providing/transmitting and receiving to and from devices are treated as MPEP 2106.05(f) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235); and MPEP 2106.05h (field of use). For the receiving, querying and providing steps that could be considered insignificant extra solution activity, these have been re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the devices are anything other than generic off the shelf computer components and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05d indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-9, 21-24 and 26-27 include all of the limitations of Claims 1 and 25 and therefore recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2-9, 21-24 and 26-27 merely narrow the abstract idea by describe additional interactions including requesting confirmation, receiving confirmation, requesting selection, describing that maintenance is scheduled to be performed according to a selection, based on a user preference, describing that data is obtained from a vehicle and includes mileage or power-on hours and indicates suboptimal operation, basing the maintenance indication on a product or part recall, and describe vehicle information as comprising last known mileage and a date, estimating current mileage based on elapsed time and average mileage per unit time, determining that maintenance is due by identifying a component associated with a recall and that the data includes government mandated or manufacturer recommended service bulletins. The additional elements merely include a high level recitation of a device and environment where the steps are applied as well as the ability to generate a reminder message and action, i.e. transmitting information. These elements do not transform the claim into a patent eligible invention but describe additional transmission/outputting functions similar to the providing and transmitting functions of the independent claims. Thus the claims do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor do the elements amount to significantly more.
Therefore, Claims 1-9 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information on 101 rejections, see MPEP 2106.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah et al. (US 10,553,119) in view of Weger et al. (US 2008/0172258) further in view of Kelly et al. (US 2004/0249531).
As per Claim 1 Shah teaches:
A computer-implemented method executed by a reminder server in communication with at least one database, for scheduling a service for a special-purpose vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving vehicle information including at least one of mileage data, usage history or operating hours (Shah in at least Col. 11:30-Col. 12:6 describes obtaining usage data from sensors and a vehicle’s on board diagnostics (OBD) system and determine whether maintenance or repair are recommended, see also Col. 9:17-29, Col. 10:32-35, Col. 12:28-49, Col. 13:59-Col. 14:5, Col. 15:38-63);
determining that the special-purpose vehicle is due for vehicle maintenance (Shah in at least Col. 11:30-Col. 12:6 describes obtaining usage data from sensors and a vehicle’s on board diagnostics (OBD) system and determine whether maintenance or repair are recommended, see also Col. 9:17-29, Col. 10:32-35, Col. 12:28-49, Col. 13:59-Col. 14:5, Col. 15:38-63);
providing, to a computing device of a service provider, a request to schedule the vehicle maintenance for the special-purpose vehicle (Shah in at least Col. 6:61-Col. 7:42 illustrates and describes sending and receiving requests for roadside assistance, e.g. a request to schedule vehicle maintenance);
Shah does not explicitly recite that the request to schedule the vehicle maintenance is according to an available service method type for the vehicle maintenance, receiving an indicating that the service has been scheduled and providing, in response, an indication to the user of the service being scheduled.
However, Weger teaches a system, method and interface for facilitating automotive glass repair and replacement. Weger further describes:
providing a request to schedule the vehicle maintenance for the special-purpose vehicle according to an available service method type for the vehicle maintenance (Weger in at least Figs. 55-58 illustrate a process and interactive interfaces for outputting selectable options for scheduling a service for either mobile or inshop type appointments, at least [0067-0069, 0096-0109] describe how interfaces with selectable options for setting preferences for inshop vs. mobile service method types, as well as location preferences, can be designated, see also [0005, 0028, 0074] describing providing and receiving requests to schedule maintenance, i.e. service requests, and indicating that a service has been scheduled and outputting that scheduled information to a user device);
receiving, from the computing device of the service provider, an indication that the service has been scheduled (Weger in at least Figs. 55-58 illustrate a process and interactive interfaces for outputting selectable options for scheduling a service for either mobile or inshop type appointments, at least [0067-0069, 0096-0109] describe how interfaces with selectable options, see also [0005, 0028, 0074] describing providing and receiving requests to schedule maintenance, i.e. service requests, and indicating that a service has been scheduled and outputting that scheduled information to a user device as is described in at least [0066, 0068, 0069, 0101] where offer, acceptance, and confirmation functions are detailed); and
providing, in response to the received indication the service has been scheduled, an indication to a device of the user that the vehicle maintenance has been scheduled for the special- purpose vehicle (Weger in at least Figs. 55-58 illustrate a process and interactive interfaces for outputting selectable options for scheduling a service for either mobile or inshop type appointments, at least [0067-0069, 0096-0109] describe how interfaces with selectable options, see also [0005, 0028, 0074] describing providing and receiving requests to schedule maintenance, i.e. service requests, and indicating that a service has been scheduled and outputting that scheduled information to a user device as is described in at least [0066, 0068, 0069, 0101] where offer, acceptance, and confirmation functions are detailed).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify maintenance determination and recommendation from usage data methods to include techniques for designating the service method type and using a request, approval, confirmation process schedule a service taking preferences into account because each of the elements were known, but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same functions as they did individually. By providing options for performing services inshop vs. mobilely (i.e. remotely) as well as other preferences and workflows the combination allows a user to designate their preferences and intentions while choosing from a variety of options that best suit their needs in a timely fashion (Weger [0002]).
Neither Shah nor Weger explicitly recite a reminder server that receives and retrieves information and data or performs the determining. However, Kelly teaches a method and system of managing service reminders and scheduling service appointments using mileage estimates and recommended recall bulletins. Kelly further teaches:
receiving, by the reminder server, vehicle information including at least one of mileage data, usage history or operating hours (Kelly in at least [0028-0029] describes the ability to update vehicle mileage by retrieving vehicle information from a database including the most recent known mileage of a vehicle)
querying, by the reminder server, a service bulletin server to retrieve recall bulletin data associated with the special-purpose vehicle based on vehicle information including make and model (Kelly in at least Fig. 12 illustrates integrating a service bulletin server so that recall bulletin data can be retrieved including the make and model of a vehicle, Claim 1 explicitly recite querying a database containing recall bulletins);
determining, by the reminder server, that the special-purpose vehicle is due for vehicle maintenance by screening the vehicle information and the recall bulletin data against one or more stored service reminders (Kelly in at least the abstract and [0020-0026, 0028-0035, 0058-0081] describes determining when reminders should be issued or if they are appropriate, i.e. that maintenance is due, by comparing vehicle information and recall bulletin data to stored reminder criteria);
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to determine when maintenance is due based on usage data to include techniques for basing such a determination on vehicle specific data and recall bulletin data because each of the elements were known, but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements performs the same function as it did independently. By utilizing vehicle specific data and recall bulletin data as indicators for performing maintenance the combination enables dangerous defects or potential failures to be preventatively repaired thus reducing risk, accidents and injuries by improving safety, performance and regulatory compliance.
As per Claim 2 Shah does not explicitly recite but Weger further teaches:
wherein: the method further comprises requesting, via the device of the user, confirmation to schedule the vehicle maintenance; and the vehicle maintenance is scheduled in response to receiving confirmation from the device of the user (Weger in at least Figs. 55-58 illustrate a process and interactive interfaces for outputting selectable options for scheduling a service for either mobile or inshop type appointments, at least [0067-0069, 0096-0109] describe how interfaces with selectable options, see also [0005, 0028, 0074] describing providing and receiving requests to schedule maintenance, i.e. service requests, and indicating that a service has been scheduled and outputting that scheduled information to a user device as is described in at least [0066, 0068, 0069, 0101] where offer, acceptance, and confirmation functions are detailed).
Weger is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 3 Shah does not explicitly recite but Weger further teaches:
wherein: requesting confirmation to schedule the vehicle maintenance comprises requesting a user selection of a service method type from a set of available service method types; and the vehicle maintenance is scheduled to be performed according to the selected service method type (Weger in at least Figs. 55-58 illustrate a process and interactive interfaces for outputting selectable options for scheduling a service for either mobile or inshop type appointments, at least [0067-0069, 0096-0109] describe how interfaces with selectable options, see also [0005, 0028, 0074] describing providing and receiving requests to schedule maintenance, i.e. service requests, and indicating that a service has been scheduled and outputting that scheduled information to a user device as is described in at least [0066, 0068, 0069, 0101] where offer, acceptance, and confirmation functions are detailed).
Weger is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 4 Shah does not explicitly recite but Weger further teaches:
wherein the vehicle maintenance is scheduled with the service provider based on a user preference indicating the service provider is a preferred service provider for the user (Weger in at least Figs. 55-58 illustrate a process and interactive interfaces for outputting selectable options for scheduling a service for either mobile or inshop type appointments, at least [0067-0069, 0096-0109] describe how interfaces with selectable options for setting preferences for service method types, location and provider preferences, can be designated, see also [0005, 0028, 0074] describing providing and receiving requests to schedule maintenance, i.e. service requests, and indicating that a service has been scheduled and outputting that scheduled information to a user device).
Weger is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 5 Shah further teaches:
wherein the usage information is obtained from the special-purpose vehicle (Shah in at least Col. 11:30-Col. 12:6 describes obtaining usage data from sensors and a vehicle’s on board diagnostics (OBD) system, see also Col. 9:17-29, Col. 10:32-35, Col. 12:28-49, Col. 13:59-Col. 14:5, Col. 15:38-63).
As per Claim 6 Shah further teaches:
wherein the usage information comprises at least one of a mileage for the special-purpose vehicle or a number of power-on hours and the vehicle maintenance is regular vehicle maintenance (Shah in at least Col. 11:30-Col. 12:6 describes obtaining usage data from sensors and a vehicle’s on board diagnostics (OBD) system and determine whether maintenance or repair are recommended, see also Col. 9:17-55, Col. 10:32-35, Col. 12:28-49, Col. 13:59-Col. 14:5, 41-49, Col. 15:38-63 describing mileage and miles driven as data used for making recommendations).
As per Claim 7 Shah further teaches:
wherein the usage information indicates suboptimal operation of the special-purpose vehicle (Shah in at least Col. 11:30-Col. 12:6 describes obtaining usage data from sensors and a vehicle’s on board diagnostics (OBD) system and determine whether maintenance or repair are recommended, see also Col. 9:17-55, Col. 10:32-35, Col. 12:28-49, Col. 13:59-Col. 14:5, 41-49, Col. 15:38-63 describing mileage and miles driven as data used for making recommendations as well as other conditions related to vehicle operation indicating a need for maintenance).
As per Claim 8 Shah in at least Col. 11:30-Col. 12:6 describes obtaining usage data from sensors and a vehicle’s on board diagnostics (OBD) system and determining whether maintenance or repair are recommended, see also Col. 9:17-29, Col. 10:32-35, Col. 12:28-49, Col. 13:59-Col. 14:5, Col. 15:38-63.
Neither Shah nor Weger explicitly recite basing a determination on product or part recall information being identified. However, Kelly teaches a method and system of managing service reminders and scheduling service appointments using mileage estimates and recommended recall bulletins. Kelly further teaches:
wherein it is determined that the special-purpose vehicle is due for vehicle maintenance based on identifying a product recall for the special-purpose vehicle (Kelly in at least the abstract and [0003, 0005, 0016-0017, 0030-0035, 0058-0059, 0068-0081] describe determining recommended maintenance or service reminders and recommendations and sending those reminders or notices to users including drivers and service providers such as dealerships based on vehicle recall bulletins for particular products or parts).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to determine when maintenance is due based on usage data to include techniques for basing such a determination on recalls because each of the elements were known, but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements performs the same function as it did independently. By utilizing recalls as an indicator for performing maintenance the combination enables dangerous defects to be preventatively repaired thus reducing risk, accidents and injuries by improving safety, performance and regulatory compliance.
As per Claim 9 Shah in at least Col. 11:30-Col. 12:6 describes obtaining usage data from sensors and a vehicle’s on board diagnostics (OBD) system and determining whether maintenance or repair are recommended, see also Col. 9:17-29, Col. 10:32-35, Col. 12:28-49, Col. 13:59-Col. 14:5, Col. 15:38-63. However, Kelly teaches a method and system of managing service reminders and scheduling service appointments using mileage estimates and recommended recall bulletins. Kelly further teaches:
Neither Shah nor Weger explicitly recite basing a determination on product or part recall information being identified. However, Kelly further teaches:
wherein the request to schedule the vehicle maintenance comprises an indication of a part that is subject to the product recall (Kelly in at least the abstract and [0003, 0005, 0016-0017, 0030-0035, 0058-0059, 0068-0081] describe determining recommended maintenance or service reminders and recommendations and sending those reminders or notices to users including drivers and service providers such as dealerships based on vehicle recall bulletins for particular products or parts).
Kelly is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 8 above.
As per Claim 21 Neither Shah nor Weger explicitly recite but Kelly further teaches:
wherein the vehicle information further comprises a last known mileage of the vehicle and a date associated with the last known mileage (Kelly [0028, 0036-0038] describe the last known mileage of a vehicle and the date of the last known mileage recording).
Kelly is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 22 Neither Shah nor Weger explicitly recite but Kelly further teaches:
estimating a current mileage of the vehicle based on an elapsed time since the last known mileage and an average mileage per unit time (Kelly in at least [0020, 0036-0057] describes estimating current mileage based on a time elapsed since the last known mileage and the average mileage per unit time).
Kelly is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 23 Neither Shah nor Weger explicitly recite but Kelly further teaches:
generating a service reminder message including a link to a scheduling system (Kelly in at least the Abstract describes the service reminder as including a link to a scheduling server, see also [0058]).
Kelly is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 24 Neither Shah nor Weger explicitly recite but Kelly further teaches:
wherein determining that the vehicle is due for maintenance comprises identifying a component of the vehicle associated with a recall bulletin and generating a maintenance action corresponding to the component (Kelly in at least the abstract and [0020-0026, 0028-0035, 0058-0081] describes determining when reminders should be issued or if they are appropriate, i.e. that maintenance is due, by comparing vehicle information and recall bulletin data to stored reminder criteria, the process of determining when reminders are due also includes the ability to identify particular parts associated with a recall and generating or scheduling replacement parts, i.e. maintenance actions, accordingly).
Kelly is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 25 the limitations are substantially similar to those set forth in Claim 1 and are therefore rejected based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Neither Sha nor Weger explicitly recite but Kelly further teaches reminder server, database and bulletin server in at least Figs. 1, 2, 8, and 12. Kelly is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 26 the limitations are substantially similar to those set forth in Claim 22 and are therefore rejected based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 22 above.
As per Claim 27 Neither Shah nor Weger explicitly recite but Kelly further teaches:
wherein the recall bulletin data includes at least one of a government-mandated recall bulletin or a manufacturer-recommended service bulletin (Kelly in at least the Abstract describes that recall bulletin data includes government mandated recalls and manufacturer recommended service bulletins, see also [0075]).
Kelly is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights