DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
2. The Amendment filed 9/10/25 has been entered. Applicant cancelled claims 2-4. Pending amended claim 1 is rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Objections
3. The claim is objected to because of the following informalities, and the following is suggested to overcome the informalities and to improve claim clarity:
Claim 1
An information processing device comprising a processor configured to execute:
…
calculating, in response to the input of the information, a payment amount and a refund amount by:
…
multiplying the third number of months by the usage fee of the third vehicle, and calculating the payment amount;
outputting, to the user interface screen, the refund amount, the second number of months, the third number of months, and the payment amount,
wherein the user interface screen is a [[W]]web page displayed on a browser of the terminal that accesses a server or a screen of the terminal executing a dedicated application program.
Appropriate correction or clarification of the claim is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
5. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the newly added limitation “receiving input of information via the input field” is unclear in scope, and therefore indefinite. Prior to this limitation in the claim, applicant has added four different “input fields” on a user interface that are being used to receive various information in each separate “input field.” Therefore, it is unclear which “input field” is being referred to as antecedent basis in the newly added “receiving … via the input field”, described above, that is introduced in the claim subsequent to the introduction of the four “input fields.”
Appropriate correction or clarification of the claim is required. No new matter may be added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
6. 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.
7. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory patent ineligible subject matter. (See, Alice and MPEP §2106)
In sum, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. (MPEP §2106)
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter) (MPEP §2106.03). Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a machine (claim 1). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. (MPEP §2106)
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. (MPEP §2106.04) Here, the independent claim, at its core, recites the abstract idea of:
outputting … a residual value of a first vehicle used by a user, … a remaining debt of the first vehicle, … a monthly insurance premium of the first vehicle, … a delivery date of a second vehicle with which the user wishes to replace, and … a vehicle category of a third vehicle that the user is able to use by paying a usage fee of a fixed amount every month and is able to cancel at any time without paying a cancellation fee, wherein the remaining debt of the first vehicle is zero in a case where the user has completed repaying the debt and the user has collectively paid at a time of purchase of the first vehicle;
receiving input of information … ;
calculating, in response to the input of the information, a payment amount and a refund amount by
multiplying a first number of months, which is a number of months until the delivery date of the second vehicle, by the monthly insurance premium of the first vehicle, and calculating a first amount of money,
adding the residual value of the first vehicle to the first amount of money and calculating a second amount of money,
subtracting the remaining debt of the first vehicle from the second amount of money, and calculating a third amount of money as the refund amount,
dividing the third amount of money by the usage fee of the third vehicle, and calculating a second number of months in which the usage fee of the third vehicle becomes free,
subtracting the second number of months from the first number of months, and calculating a third number of months in which the user needs to pay the usage fee, and
multiplying the third number of months by the usage fee of the third vehicle, and calculating the payment amount
outputting, … , the refund amount, the second number of months, the third number of months, and the payment amount.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (MPEP §2106.04), to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes sub-categories of commercial interactions involving sales activities or behaviors (e.g., in the claims: determining a payment amount, a refund amount, a delivery date, and various numbers of months for paying or not paying a certain fee, associated with various vehicles to be purchased or leased).
The subject matter of the recited abstract idea also falls within category of mathematical concepts, where various mathematical operations are used on the various recited financial and other data associated with the lease or purchase of the various vehicles, including determining a payment amount, a refund amount, a delivery date, and various numbers of months for paying or not paying a certain fee.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 the recited additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application. (i.e., whether they provide a technological solution). (MPEP §2106.04) Here, the recited additional elements, such as: a “user interface screen” for displaying or inputting various data in various data input fields, a “terminal” which includes various data input fields, a “web page” that is displayed on a “browser” of a “terminal” that accesses a “server”, a “screen” of a “terminal” that executes an “application program”, do not amount to an inventive concept since the claims are simply using each of these additional elements, which are recited in the claims at a high degree of generality, as a tool to carry out the recited abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computing device, using a display device or user interface, and/or via software programming, where the additional elements are not being technologically improved but simply perform generic computer data receipt and processing/analysis steps, data communication steps, and/or data outputting/displaying steps such as those typically used in a general purpose computing device or computer, or a computing system, using a display or user interface. Thus, the claims do not provide an integration into a practical application.
The independent claim also includes one or more additional element limitation that is/are simply being used to carry out insignificant extra-solution activity recited in the independent claim, which activity is beyond the abstract idea recited therein and is only tangentially related thereto and does not provide a technological improvement (i.e., an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application). (MPEP §2106.05(g)) Here, the independent claim includes the additional element limitations of:
“outputting a user interface screen on a terminal ,,, wherein the user interface screen is a (web) page displayed on a browser of the terminal that accesses a server or a screen of the terminal executing a dedicated application program.”
Applicant’s disclosure describes that these additional element limitations simply require that certain information displayed on a user interface screen that includes various data fields for inputting and/or displaying various information, where the interface screen can be a web page, and where the dedicated application program is simply a browser application for implementing the web page for displaying the various data input fields. (See e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 010, 014, 022, and 028-032) No technological improvement is being described with usage of the user interface on the terminal or of the web browser application program used to display the various data input fields on the web page.
Under the Step 2B analysis, it is determined whether the recited additional elements amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed. (i.e., provide an inventive concept). (MPEP §2106.05) Here, the recited additional elements, identified above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, do not amount to an inventive concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, where the additional elements are not being technologically improved, but rather, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computing device, and use of a display device or user interface, and/or via software programming, where the additional elements are not being technologically improved but simply perform generic computer data receipt and processing/analysis steps, data communication steps, and/or data outputting/displaying steps such as those typically used in a general purpose computing device or computer, or a computing system, using a display or user interface having data fields, where the additional elements are being used in the claims to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved, and therefore do not provide something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed. (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.)
As determined above in Step 2, Prong 2, the independent claim also includes one or more additional element limitation that is/are simply being used to carry out insignificant extra-solution activity recited in the independent claims, which activity is beyond the abstract idea recited therein and is only tangentially related thereto. (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(g)) Here, “outputting a user interface screen on a terminal ,,, wherein the user interface screen is a (web) page displayed on a browser of the terminal that accesses a server or a screen of the terminal executing a dedicated application program.” The additional element limitation(s) of the independent claim identified in this paragraph is/are simply carrying out extra-solution activity/functionality that is well-known, routine or conventional for a computer, a computing system, a computing device, including associated displays and/or user interfaces, for displaying data, and none of the elements are themselves being technologically improved. (See e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 010, 014, 022, and 028-032) No technological improvement is being described with usage of the user interface); See also, MPEP §2106.05(d)II.)
Thus, the claim, viewed as a whole, including consideration of all the limitations of the claim viewed both individually and in combination, fails to add any additional element or provide any subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter, nor does the claim provide something significantly more than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments filed 9/10/25 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments (Amendment, Pgs. 4-5) concerning the prior rejection of the claims under 35 USC §101, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive for the following reasons. Under the prior and current 101 analysis, the claims recite and are directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea, without something significantly more, for the reasons given above after consideration of the claimed features and elements. The abstract idea has been restated above in the 101 rejection in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments under Step 2A, Prong 1 (Amendment, Pg. 4), alleging that the claim does not recite a patent ineligible abstract idea, are not persuasive. Although the claim now recites the use of a user interface screen, it also recites an abstract idea that includes the use of various data input fields for receiving various data for calculating various financial amounts and months of use of various vehicles, including for leasing a vehicle prior to delivery of a vehicle, which is a commercial interaction involving various sales activities, as described above in the §101 rejection based on the instant amended claim.
Applicant’s arguments under Step 2A, Prong 2 (Amendment, Pgs. 4-5), alleging that the claim is not directed to the abstract idea recited by the claim, are not persuasive. The use of the various additional elements in the claim, including a web page, a terminal having a user interface screen having various data input fields, etc., does not preclude the claim being directed to the recited abstract idea, since the various additional elements are not themselves being technologically improved, nor are they providing a technological improvement. They are recited at a high degree of generality in the claim and are simply being used to carryout the recited abstract idea, as discussed in more detail above in the §101 rejection.
The problem of a user’s willingness or not to buy a replacement vehicle having a long delivery date is a financial problem, not a technological problem.
Since applicant makes no specific allegation of error by the Office in its prior determination that the claims do not provide an inventive concept under Step 2B, no response is necessary by the Office under Step 2B.
Therefore, for these reasons and the reasons given above, the rejection of the claim under 35 USC §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
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 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 Joseph W. King whose telephone number is (571) 270 -5776. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 7 AM - 3 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6776.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, or via video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview applicant may call the Examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOSEPH W. KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696