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 claims filed on 25 January 2024.
Claims 1-3 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 25 January 2024 and 30 March 2026, have been considered. An initialed copy of the Forms 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more).
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-3 are directed to a system.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of determining a charge for adding an item to a vehicle. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
acquiring a request for adding an item to a vehicle;
acquiring first information that is information according to whether the vehicle is structured such that the item is added;
determining a charge for adding the item to the vehicle based on the first information and information about the item; and
outputting information about the charge.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of determining a charge for adding an item to a vehicle, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recite acquiring the request for adding an item to a vehicle, determining if the vehicle is structured to add the item, determining the charge for adding the item based on if the vehicle is structured for the item, and outputting the information related to the charge, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
It is additionally noted that that the step of determining a charge for adding the item to the vehicle based on the first information and information about the item, would fall into the enumerated grouping of mental processes. A mental process is defined as and includes “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion)” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). In this case, the determination of a charge for adding the item to the vehicle, would be considered a concept performed in the human mind, such as a judgement. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea that also falls into the grouping of mental processes.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements: processing device and a control unit.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., determining a charge for adding an item to a vehicle) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements processing device and a control unit, recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 3, depending from claim 1, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claim 1. The claims of 1 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claim 2 include the additional element of a display of a user terminal. Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the display of a user terminal as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional element, individually and in combination with other claimed features, does not integrate into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept because they is merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claim 2 is directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional element of claim 2, considered individually and in combination with other claimed features, does not provide an inventive concept because it merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer, or a computing component, such as a display of a user terminal. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claim 3 does not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the dependent claims 2-3 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Sethi, N., et al. (PGP No. US 2016/0078403 A1).
Claim 1-
Sethi discloses an information processing device comprising a control unit that executes (Sethi, see: paragraph [0020] “system 100” and FIG. 1):
acquiring a request for adding an item to a vehicle (Sethi, see: paragraph [0028] disclosing “procurement application 102” and “use the part catalog to…upgrade components or system based on the vehicle owner’s request” and paragraph [0050] disclosing “communicates a request to purchase the part to the sales system 112”);
acquiring first information that is information according to whether the vehicle is structured such that the item is added (Sethi, see: paragraph [0028] disclosing “parts catalog…include all compatible parts [i.e., the vehicle is structured]” and paragraph [0029] disclosing “use the received information about the automobile 106, such as the year, make, model” and “filter lists of parts compatible with the vehicle”);
determining a charge for adding the item to the vehicle based on the first information and information about the item (Sethi, see: paragraph [0029] disclosing “use the received information about the automobile 106, such as the year, make, model” and “filter lists of parts compatible with the vehicle”; and paragraph [0057] disclosing “preparing estimated quotes” and “correlate attributes of the vehicle such as year, make, model” and “take in to consideration estimated labor time and associated costs”); and
outputting information about the charge (Sethi, see: paragraph [0076] disclosing “each of the selected parts can be provided in a cart user interface [i.e., outputting]” and “can be listed with an itemized price list and price total”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sethi, N., et al. in view of Marafino, D. (PGP No. US 2017/0021780 A1).
Claim 2-
Sethi discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, as described above.
Sethi further discloses:
wherein outputting the information about the charge includes transmitting a command that causes a display of a user terminal to display the information about the charge (Sethi, see: paragraph [0075] disclosing “Upon the selection of the parts objects, the method 320 can proceed to step 346” and paragraph [0076] disclosing “At step 346, each of the selected parts can be provided in a cart user interface. For example, the selected parts can be listed along with an itemized price list and price total.”; Also see FIG. 1 rendering the system, including the computing device 104 that displays the procurement application to the user.).
Although Sethi describes the command steps that include causing a display to a terminal to display information about the charge, Sethi does not specifically describe that the user terminal is a terminal of the vehicle. Sethi does not disclose:
a user terminal of the vehicle to display the information;
Marafino, however, does teach:
a user terminal of the vehicle to display the information (Marafino, see: paragraph [0028] teaching “a vehicle device or display system 16, which can be an in-car display system”; and paragraph [0030] teaching “displaying system receiving input from the wiring harness might be a Front Control Interface Module”).
This step of Marafino is applicable to the system of Sethi, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to adding a vehicle part to a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sethi to include the feature of a user terminal of the vehicle to display information, as taught by Marafino. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Sethi to improve interfacing solutions by allowing retrofitting of a vehicle (Marafino, see: at least paragraphs [0006] and [0026]).
Claim 3-
Sethi in view of Marafino teach the information processing device according to claim 1, as described above.
Sethi discloses:
wherein the information according to whether the vehicle is structured such that the item is added includes information about the item (Sethi, see: paragraph [0029] disclosing “use the received information about the automobile 106, such as the year, make, model” and “filter lists of parts compatible with the vehicle”; and paragraph [0057] disclosing “preparing estimated quotes” and “correlate attributes of the vehicle such as year, make, model”).
Although Sethi describes that information is determined whether a vehicle is structured that an item is added, such as the parts are compatible according to a make, model, year, etc., of the vehicle, Sethi does not describe that the information about the vehicle structured is a wire harness to the item is attached to the vehicle. Sethi does not disclose:
whether a wire harness connectable to the item is attached to the vehicle;
Marafino, however, does teach:
whether a wire harness connectable to the item is attached to the vehicle (Marafino, see: paragraph (Marafino, see: paragraph [0028] teaching “Retrofit interface system 100 comprises a wiring harness 10 and a control system 20” and “comprises a vehicle device or display system 16, which can be an in-car display system [i.e., attached to the vehicle]”; and paragraph [0037] teaching “retrofit system can be any…devices described” and “the retrofit system can comprise a wiring harness 10” and “the retrofit system includes a camera”).
This step of Marafino is applicable to the system of Sethi, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to adding a vehicle part to a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sethi to include the feature of whether a wire harness connectable to the item is attached to the vehicle, as taught by Marafino. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Sethi to improve interfacing solutions by allowing retrofitting of a vehicle (Marafino, see: at least paragraphs [0006] and [0026]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rich, D., et al. (PGP No. US 2022/0306050 A1), describes a diagnostic condition indexed kit for implementing a do-it-yourself automotive repair includes at least one replacement part compatible with a specified vehicle, at least one tool for installing the replacement part(s) in the specified vehicle, and packaging containing the replacement part(s) and the tool(s).
Patel, R., et al. (PGP No. US 2020/0387949 A1), describes a compatibility guidance method to provide guidance to online customer about automotive accessory, parts for an online marketplace and in-store provides a combination of make, model and year of a machinery for customer to confirm particular universal automotive accessory's compatibility with given combination of vehicle during online shopping.
Non-patent literature (NPL) document, Lectric Limited, published on lectriclimited.com/wiring-harnesses (2016), renders and describes a website for searching and ordering of a specific and correct automotive part for install, and provides filtering for year, make, and model for the car to find compatible parts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. 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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights