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 received on 02 July 2026.
Claims 1 and 2 are amended.
Claim 3 is canceled.
Claims 4 and 5 are new and added.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites transmit screen information that includes charge information about the charge to a user terminal, and causes the terminal to display, which appears to be typographical errors. The claim has previously recited a terminal, and therefore the claims should be recited as transmit screen information that includes charge information about the charge to [[a]] the user terminal, and causes the user terminal to display.
Claims 2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite a user terminal of the vehicle which appears to be a typographical error, as the claim depends from claim 1 and a user terminal has previously been recited. The claims should be recited as [[a]] the user terminal.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 recite allowable subject matter and would be allowable of the claims were re-written or amended to overcome the 101 rejection indicated in the Office Action below.
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 1-2 and 4-5 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 1-2 and 4-5 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 charges for installing items in a vehicle. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
acquire a request including information specifying an item to be installed in a vehicle and vehicle identification information from a user used by a user of the vehicle;
acquire first information from an item information data the first information indicating whether the vehicle includes a pre-installed ready structure configured to accommodate the item to be installed;
determine an installation charge for installing the item in the vehicle, the installation charge being based at least on whether the first information indicates the vehicle includes the pre-installed ready structure and compatibility information indicating whether the item corresponds to the pre-installed ready structure, wherein
in response to the first information indicating that the vehicle includes the pre-installed ready structure corresponding to the item to be installed, sets the charge for installing the item to a first charge, and
in response to the first information indicating that the vehicle does not include the pre-installed ready structure corresponding to the item to be installed, sets the charge for installed the item to a second charge, and
the second charge is greater than the first charge; and
transmit information that includes charge information about the charge to a user, and cause to display information received from the information on a display of the user.
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 installing an item to a vehicle, acquiring information from an item data indicating that the vehicle includes a pre-installed ready configuration to accommodate the item to be installed, determining a charge for install of the first item, setting the first charge for the item, in response to an indication that the vehicle does not include the configuration for pre-installed ready for the item setting a second charge and tram sitting the information including the charges, to a user, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
It is additionally noted that that the step determine an installation charge for installing the item in the vehicle, 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 installing the item in 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: a processing device, a processor, a user terminal, database, the processor, the processor, a user terminal, the terminal to display the screen, processing device, and the user terminal.
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, a processor, a user terminal, database, the processor, the processor, a user terminal, the terminal to display the screen, processing device, and the user terminal, 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 4-5, depending from claim 1, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claim 1. The claims of 2 and 4-5 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims include a smart phone, a mobile phone, a tablet terminal, a personal information terminal, a wearable smart device, and a computer (claim 4). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements in claim 4 as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination with other claimed features, do not integrate into a practical application and do 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 4 is directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim 4, considered individually and in combination with other claimed features, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer, or a computing components. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 2 and 5 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 and 4-5 are ineligible.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
Prior Art Considerations:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is concluded that the totality of evidence in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
Regarding the independent claims, the features are as follows:
in response to the first information indicating that the vehicle does not include the pre-installed ready structure corresponding to the item to be installed, the processor sets the charge for installing the item to a second charge; and
the second charge is greater than the first charge.
The most apposite prior art of record includes Sethi, N., et al. (PGP No. US 2016/0078403 A1), in view of Marafino, D. (PGP No. US 2017/0021780 A1), Rich, D., et al. (PGP No. US 2022/0306050 A1), and Patel, R., et al. (PGP No. US 2020/0387949 A1), to teach a system for adding components to a vehicle.
The reference of Sethi describes a system for upgrading components in a vehicle and a procurement application, where a vehicle owner is able to request a purchase of a vehicle part from a sales system (Sethi, see: paragraphs [0020], [0028], [0050], and FIG. 1). The system includes a catalog for parts of vehicles and indicates compatibility with specific vehicles based on year, make, model, etc. of a vehicle, and may filter the results based on that compatibility (Sethi, see: paragraphs [0028]-[0029]). The system of Sethi takes int account estimated labor time and other costs for a final purchase cost once all of the information has been received from the owner of the vehicle, and then prepares an estimated quote for the owner (Sethi, paragraphs [0029] and [0057]). Further, the system of Sethi is able to provide the vehicle owner to the estimated quote with the selected parts to be installed, which is provided via a user interface, where an itemized list of prices for each item is provided as well (Sethi, paragraph [0076]). Although Sethi describes the system for providing install estimates for components of vehicles, Sethi does not include or describe the allowable features indicated above.
Next, the reference of Marafino describes a system for an in-car display that can receive input and provides output to a user, where the display system receives the input from specific wiring that is harnessed to an Interface Module (Marafino, see: paragraphs [0028] and [0030]). The system of Marafino can retrofit devices via the wiring harness, which also includes a camera (Marafino, paragraphs [0028], [0037]). Although Marafino describes the retrofitting for installing vehicle components via a wiring harness, Marafino does not describe any of the features that are allowable as indicated above.
Further, the reference of Rich describes a system for implementing a do-it-yourself repairing for vehicles where the system provides information of compatible parts for a specific vehicle, and further provides a repair recommendation report that includes receiving repair data inputs to then generate the report of recommendations of repairs and costs associated with them (Rich, see: Col. 4, ln. 64-67 & Col. 5, ln. 1-2). Although Rich provides information of a system that can provide recommendations of repairs along with the costs, Rich does not disclose nor describe any of the allowable features as indicated above.
The reference of Patel describes guidance to customers for automative components and accessories, and provides compatibility information for specific vehicles as well (Patel, Abstract). Patel further provides help for in-store customers by building them in checking the compatibility of specific parts for specific vehicles (Patel, paragraph [0018]), and help with the purchase of any suggested parts as well (Patel, paragraph [0020]). Although Patel also describes a system for aiding customers in finding compatible parts for vehicles and aiding in the purchasing process, Patel does not describe any of the allowable features indicated above.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. Moreover, the combination of features of independent claims, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias and resulting in an inappropriate combination.
It is hereby asserted by the Examiner, that in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims recite allowable subject matter as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner notes that the non-patent literature (NPL) document, titled ampREVOLT – Electric Vehicle Conversions, Parts, & Kits, found on ampREVOLT website (2020), documented on PTO-892 form as reference U, and hereinafter referred to as ‘ampREVOLT’, renders a website that a customer visits to find compatible parts and kits for vehicles for purchase, as well as offers consultation services for customers that need more guidance. Although the reference ‘ampREVOLT’ describes features related to finding compatible car parts and kits to install, it does not disclose or teach the allowable features that are stated above, and does not remedy the deficiencies of the noted prior art.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 02 July 2026, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 8 of the remarks stating that “The Applicant submits that, as amended, claim 1 provides a specific, technological device that is able to provide a user with a more accurate estimated cost for installing an item in a vehicle based on whether the vehicle includes a pre-installed ready structure corresponding to the item to be installed. Thus, the subject matter of amended claim 1 is directed to a technological solution for improving the accuracy in providing cost estimates for the installation of desired components based on the presence or absence of pre-installed ready structures,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, the claims recite and are directed to the abstract idea of determining charges for installing items in a vehicle. The abstract idea falls into the enumerated grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity and related to sales activities or behaviors. Next, under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The amended claims now recite the features of processing device, a processor, a user terminal, database, the processor, the processor, a user terminal, the terminal to display the screen, processing device, and the user terminal. However, even when considering the additional elements individually and in combination, they are still generically recited and are merely being used to apply the abstract idea with generic computing components and a generic computer. The additional elements are still recited at a high-level of generality and would not be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the amended claims do not reflect a technological solution to a technological problem. The MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, as indicated in 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. Although the claims include computer technology such as processing device, a processor, a user terminal, database, the processor, the processor, a user terminal, the terminal to display the screen, processing device, and the user terminal, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of determining charges for installing items in a vehicle. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improvements in the determinations for charges associated with installing items in vehicles, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor and computer components used in conventional systems to improve determining charges for installing items in vehicles, e.g. commercial process. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 102 and 103, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 02 July 2026, have been fully considered. In light of the Applicant’s amendments to the independent claim 1, the claims now recite allowable subject matter as indicated above, and therefore the 102 and 103 rejections are withdrawn.
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 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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