Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 13th of April 2026.
Claims 1-20 and 23-24, 26-27, 30-31, 34, 37-40 were previously cancelled.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 were amended.
Claims 21-22, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36, and 41-52 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13th of April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 21-22, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36, and 41-52, Applicant argues “…The Office Action Characterizes the Claims at an Impermissibly High Level of Abstraction in Violation of Enfish, SRI International, and the 2019 Guidance.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the claims, the specification states “…various aspects described herein relate to evaluating accident claim data to identify parts available for reuse and taking various actions with the parts based on historical data.” Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea rather than a technological solution to a technological problem. The claims merely use existing technology to implement and automate the abstract idea.
With regard to the limitations of claims 21-22, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36, and 41-52, Applicant argues “…The Office Action Misclassifies the Abstract Idea Category in Violation of the 2019 Guidance.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity and merely use computing technology as a tool to implement that abstract idea. Accordingly, the abstract idea was not misclassified.
With regard to the limitations of claims 21-22, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36, and 41-52, Applicant argues “…The Office Action Conducts Element-by-Element Isolation Analysis Under Steps 2A Prong 2 in Violation of BASCOM and the 2019 Guidance.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims were considered as a whole. However, to provide a complete explanation of why the claims recite an abstract idea implemented using computing technology, the examiner discussed both the individual claim elements and the claim as an ordered combination.
With regard to the limitations of claims 21-22, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36, and 41-52, Applicant argues “…The Office Action is Inconsistent with the Office’s Own Prior Examination of Five Granted Patents Sharing the Same Specification.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, those applications/patents were not examined by the present examiner. Second, nothing in the MPEP requires the examiner to allow present claims merely because patents sharing the same specification were previously granted. Each application and each claim must be evaluated on its own merits under the applicable law and guidance. Accordingly, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 21-22, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36, and 41-52, Applicant argues “…The Claims Recite Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Categories.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, specifically “a method of organizing human activity,” which is not patent-eligible subject matter under 101. Accordingly, the 101 rejection will be maintained.
With regard to the limitations of claims 21-22, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36, and 41-52, Applicant argues “…The Amended Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims remain directed to an abstract idea. Although applicant added limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea, such as the determining steps, those limitations merely use computing technology as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The amended claims do not recite an improvement to any technology or provide a technological solution to a technological problem.
With regard to the limitations of claims 21-22, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36, and 41-52, Applicant argues “…The Claims Must Be Evaluated Based on Their Actual Language, Not a High-Level Characterization.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As clearly set forth in the rejection, the claim language was specifically evaluated both element by element and as a whole. The rejection was therefore not based on an overly broad or high-level characterization of the claims.
With regard to the limitations of claims 21-22, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36, and 41-52, Applicant argues “…The Claims Are Directed to a Specific Improvement in Computerized Parts Management System Functionality, Analogous to Claims Found Patent-Eligible in Enfish and McRO.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the present claims are not analogous to the claims at issue in McRo and Enfish, which did not concern parts management. Second, although applicant broadly asserts that the claims provide a specific improvement to a computerized parts management system, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims merely automate a method of organizing human activity by using a computer technology as a tool. They do not address a technological problem arising in computer technology or recite a technological solution to such a problem.
With regard to the limitations of claims 21-22, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36, and 41-52, Applicant argues “…The Amended Claims Integrate Any Alleged Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, merely using computer technology to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With regard to the limitations of claims 21-22, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36, and 41-52, Applicant argues “…The Claims Apply Any Alleged Abstract Idea With a Particular Machine Configured to Perform Specific Technical Functions Beyond Generic Computer Use.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, communicating and storing data, and making determinations based on that data, do not constitute a technical solution to a technical problem. At most, these limitations merely instruct a computer to perform the abstract idea.
With regard to the limitations of claims 21-22, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36, and 41-52, Applicant argues “…The Physical Storage Destination Determination and Transfer Instruction Constitute a Concrete Real-World Application That Extends Beyond the Digital Environment.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to rely on the limitation of “determining, based on the stored vehicle information, a physical storage location to which the at least one part of is to be transferred for future use in repairing one or more of the plurality of vehicles.” However, this limitation merely analyzes stored vehicle information to determine where a part should be transferred. Such data analysis remains part of the abstract idea and does not provide a technological solution to a technological problem.
With regard to the limitations of claims 21-22, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36, and 41-52, Applicant argues “…The Conditional Database Architecture Constitutes a Specific Technical Implementation That Meaningfully Limits the Practice of Any Alleged Abstract Idea.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to rely on the determining step discussed above. However, determining whether a part should be stored at physical location A or physical location B based on an analysis of stored data (vehicle information) does not provide a specific technological improvement. The determination merely results from data analysis, while the subsequent storage of data constitutes extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these limitations do not provide a technological solution to a technological problem.
With regard to the limitations of claims 21-22, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36, and 41-52, Applicant argues “…The Multi-System Coordination Architecture Constitutes a Further Indicator of Practical Application Integration.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant again relies on the determining step and argues that the claimed multi-system coordination architecture further demonstrates integration into a practical application. Determining whether an item should be stored at location A or location B based on analyzed data does not improve an existing technology or provide a technological solution to a technological problem. Rather, it merely uses computer systems to implement the abstract idea.
With regard to the limitations of claims 21-22, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36, and 41-52, Applicant argues “…The Amended Claims Recite Significantly More Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. As explained in the rejection, merely applying the judicial exception using generic computing components does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With regard to the limitations of claims 21-22, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36, and 41-52, Applicant argues “…The Enumerated Data Parameters Constitutes a Specific Non-Conventional Technical Implementation.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract idea may involve numerous data parameters. However, the number or variety of parameters, and the manner in which they are compared or analyzed, does not transform the data analysis into a technological solution to a technological problem. For example, a mathematical calculation may involve multiple variables, but it remains an abstract idea because those variables are merely components of the mathematical analysis.
With regard to the limitations of claims 21-22, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36, and 41-52, Applicant argues “…The Physical Storage Destination Determination Provides a Concrete Non-Conventional Operational Output.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, merely determining a storage destination based on data analysis does not constitute a technological improvement or a technological solution to a technological problem. Rather, it merely uses existing computing technology as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
With regard to the limitations of claims 21-22, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36, and 41-52, Applicant argues “…The Ordered Combination of All Claim Elements Constitutes a Non-Conventional Arrangement Providing an Inventive Concept.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim elements considered both individually and as an ordered combination, may at most define a particular application of the abstract idea. However, they neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more because they merely use computing technology as a tool, or provide instructions to a computer, to implement the abstract idea.
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 21-22, 25, 28-29, 32, 35-36, and 41-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
First of all, claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. For claim 21, the claim recites an abstract idea of
“…determine, based on information indicative of damage to a vehicle, that at least one part of the vehicle is available for reuse; communicate an instruction to remove the at least one part from the vehicle; accessing a historical information storing vehicle information for a plurality of vehicles associated with an entity; determine, based on the stored vehicle information and one or more data parameters including at least one of: a part number associated with the at least one part, a vehicle make with which the at least one part may be used, a vehicle model with which the at least one part may be used, a total number of vehicles capable of using the at least one part, or a likelihood that the at least one part will be damaged, that an amount of other vehicle capable of using the at least one part exceeds a threshold amount of vehicle; after the determination that the amount of other vehicle capable of using the at least one part exceeds the threshold amount of vehicles; determine, based on the stored vehicle information, a physical storage location to which the at least one part is to be transferred for future use in repairing one or more of the plurality of vehicles; store information corresponding to the at least one part in an inventory database; and communicate an instruction to store the at least one part at the storage location; communicate to one or more repair shop systems an indication that the at least one part has been added to inventory; and after receiving a request for the at least one part from a requesting repair shop system, reserve the at least one part by indicating in the parts management system that the at least one part is reserved.” This is an abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, since it recites a commercial or legal interactions, namely evaluating accident claim data to identify parts available for reuse and taking various actions with the parts (including adding it to inventory to be requested and used by repair shop(s)) based on historical data. Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components/processes (e.g., processors, memory, parts of management system). “We conclude that claim 1 is “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes and machinery” rather than “a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology.” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1371
This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components/processes (e.g., processors, memory, parts of management system) to receive/transmit/store data (extra-solution activities) and perform the abstract idea mentioned above. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). The additional elements (e.g., processors, memory, parts of management system) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 - (e.g., processors, memory, parts of management system) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Again, the insignificant extra-solution activities mentioned above were re-evaluated in step 2B. The limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the courts found sending/receiving/storing of data to be well understood, routine, and conventional activities. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Thus again, claims were not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 28 and 35.
Dependent claims 22, 25-27, 29, 32-34, 36, and 41-52 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claims 22, 29, and 36, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added, “…wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the parts management system to transmit a confirmation message indicating that the at least one part has been reserved.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 25 and 32, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added, “…determine, based on at least one of the plurality of user inputs, the threshold amount.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 26 and 33, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further define the parameters as, “…a plurality of parameters including at least one of: a threshold number of vehicles associated with a user of the parts management system, a threshold number of types of vehicles on which the at least one part may be used, a threshold amount of time within which the at least one part will be used, and a threshold percentage that the at least one part will be reused.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 27, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein each of the plurality of user inputs corresponds to one of the plurality of parameters.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 41, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the historical information database stores data associated with types of vehicles and a number of vehicles associated with the entity.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 42, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…transmit a confirmation to the requesting repair shop system indicating that the at least one part has been reserved, wherein the confirmation includes a date on which the at least one part will be transferred to the requesting repair shop system..” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 43, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein determining that the at least one part of the vehicle is available for reuse is performed before the at least one part is removed from the vehicle.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 44, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the parts management system is associated with an insurance company entity, and wherein the plurality of vehicles stored in the historical information database are vehicles insured by the insurance company entity.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 45, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the historical information database stores data associated with types of vehicles and a number of vehicles associated with the entity.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 46, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…transmitting a confirmation to the requesting repair shop system indicating that the at least one part has been reserved, wherein the confirmation includes a date on which the at least one part will be transferred to the requesting repair shop system.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 47, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein determining that the at least one part of the vehicle is available for reuse is performed before the at least one part is removed from the vehicle.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 48, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the parts management system is associated with an insurance company entity, and wherein the plurality of vehicles stored in the historical information database are vehicles insured by the insurance company entity.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 49, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the historical information database stores data associated with types of vehicles and a number of vehicles associated with the entity.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 50, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…transmitting, by the parts management system, a confirmation to the requesting repair shop system indicating that the at least one part has been reserved, wherein the confirmation includes a date on which the at least one part will be transferred to the requesting repair shop system.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 51, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein determining that the at least one part of the vehicle is available for reuse is performed before the at least one part is removed from the vehicle.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 52, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the parts management system is associated with an insurance company entity, and wherein the plurality of vehicles stored in the historical information database are vehicles insured by the insurance company entity.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
Conclusion
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 concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3092. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 9-5.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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.
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 07/07/2026
Prosecution Insights