DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Case Status
This is a CON of 14/687,542 which is US Patent 11,769,119.
Claim Amendment
The amendment filed 4/17/26 has been entered. Claims pending: 1, 3-6, 14-18 and 21-24.
Amended independent claims: 1, 14, and 21.
Dependent claims: None.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-6, 14-18 and 21-24 are pending.
The pending claims comprise 3 groups:
1) System1: 1, 3-6, and
2) Method1: 14-20, and
3) Article1: 21-24.
All appear to have similar scope.
As of 04/17/26, claim 1 is as followed:
1. (Currently amended) A computer system comprising:
[I] at least one processor; and
[II] memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the computer system to: continuously:
[1] receive maintenance data communicated from, a telematics device of a vehicle, wherein the maintenance data indicates, for each of one or more aspects of the vehicle a respective status of the aspect of the vehicle, wherein the respective status of each of the one or more aspects of the vehicle is determined based at least in part by comparing sensed values generated by respective sensors of the vehicle with corresponding nominal values generated by the respective sensors; and
[2] automatically determine, based on the respective status of each of the one or more aspects of the vehicle, whether one or more repairs are required to be performed on the vehicle; and
[3] after determining, that one or more repairs are required to be performed, parse one or more databases accessible to the computing system to identify one or more repair records associated with one or more previously repaired vehicles that underwent respective repairs that match the determined one or more repairs, wherein the one or more repair records are identified by matching the determined one or more repairs to prior repair records based on at least a repair type and a vehicle service provider identity, and wherein each identified repair record indicates a period required to perform a particular repair for the matched repair type and vehicle service provider identity;
[4] based on the one or more previous repair records, estimate an overall period required to perform the plurality of repairs by a vehicle service provider of the vehicle;
[5] based on the estimated overall period, determine one or more alternative transportation options for the user that are available during the estimated overall period for the repair;
[6] communicate, to a mobile device, an indication of one or more repair options for repairing the vehicle, the estimated overall period for the repair, and the one or more alternative transportation options; and
[7] after receiving, from the mobile device, an indication of a selection of one of the one or more repair options:
[8] automatically schedule with a vehicle service provider computing device of a vehicle service provider capable of performing the selected one or more repair options a mutually acceptable time for performing the one or more repairs based on availability of the vehicle service provider and preferences of the driver of the vehicle, and
[9] automatically arrange with an alternative transportation service computing device of an alternative transportation service for an alternative vehicle to be provided to the driver during the estimated overall period for the repair based on availability of the alternative transportation services and preferences of the driver of the vehicle.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[9] are added to the beginning of each step.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 3-6, 14-18 and 21-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,769,119 in view of CN 104.460.644 (Appl. No. 14/687,542). The steps of current claim 14 of current application,
[1] “receive … maintenance data..”,
[2] “determining a repair…”,
[3] parsing….
[4] “estimating …”,
[5] “determining …”, and
[6] “communicating (sending) …repair options notification…”
of current claimed application,
[7] receiving an indication …,
[8] scheduling … a service provider …,
[9] arranging alternative transportation service…,
reads over Claim 1 of US Patent 11,769,119:
steps carried out by a “Server computer system”, the steps:
[1] of “receiving … maintenance data…”,
[2] “determining a repair…”,
[5] “estimating …”,
[6] assigning … a rental car”, and
[7] “sending … repair options notification …”,
[8] receiving a selection ….
[9] arranging alternative service…
As for the features steps carried out by the telematics device, a computing device of a vehicle service provider and device by the driver of the vehicle, in Claim 1 of US 11,769,119, they are inherently taught in the steps of 1-5 of current claim 14 (method) or claim 1 (system).
As for the step of “parsing parse one or more databases accessible to the computing system to identify one or more repair records associated with one or more previously repaired vehicles that underwent respective repairs that match the determined one or more repairs, wherein each repair record indicates a period required to perform a particular repair; this is taught in CN 104.460.644 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
412
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify claim 14 of current application to include the parsing of the database to identify one or more repair records associated with previous records that underwent respective repairs that match determined on or more repairas taught by CN 104.460.644 for obtaining quick solution to similar problem.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
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, 3-6, 14-18 and 21-24 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.
Step 1: when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
1) law of nature,
2) natural phenomenon, and
3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(1) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
(3) Certain methods of organizing human activities.
(i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
(iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (1) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1, 3-6, 14-18 and 21-24:
Claim categories:
1) System1: 1, 3-6, and
2) Method1: 14-18 and
3) Article1: 21-24.
Analysis of Step 1:
Method: claims 14-18 are directed to a process; i.e., a series of steps or acts, for determining repairs for a vehicle and alternative transportation for a driver. (Step 1:Yes).
Machine: claims 1, 3-6 are directed to a system comprising a processor/server computer system, and memory having instructions for causing the system to carry out a series of steps or acts, for determining repairs for a vehicle and alternative transportation for a driver. (Step 1:Yes).
Article: claims 21-24, are directed to a NT computer-readable-medium having instructions for causing the system to carry out a series of steps or acts, for determining repairs for a vehicle and alternative transportation for a driver. (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims 1, 3-6, 14-18 and 21-24 are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1 , 3-6, 14-18 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 14, as exemplary, recites a method for determining repairs for a vehicle and alternative transportation for a driver, is a fundamental economic principle or business practice for determining repairs for a vehicle and alternative transportation for the driver, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
Furthermore, independent claims 1, 14 and 21 recite an abstract idea related to evaluation/analyzing car conditions by comparing actual conditions to healthy operation conditions and determining car defective performance that need repairs and displaying notification to related parties, which constitutes an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for evaluation/analyzing car conditions by comparing actual conditions to healthy operation conditions and determining car defective performance that need repairs and displaying notification to related parties, by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] receive maintenance data. Data gathering, insignificant extra-solution activity (IE-SA) step.
[2] determine a repair. Mental step.
[3] parse a database for relevant data. Mental step.
[4] estimate a period of repair time. Mental step.
[5] determine alternative way (info). Mental step.
[6] sending repair notification (data). Transport data, IE-SA.
[7] communicate an indication (data). Sending data, IE-SA.
[8] scheduling a time (data) for performing. Mental step.
[9] arranging … a service. Mental step.
Steps [1], [6], and [7] are data gathering and outputting and sending data which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [2]-[5], [8] and [9] are for evaluating / analyzing car conditions and identifying car conditions and repair options and alternative transportations for the driver. These mental steps or well known business activities for analyzing various activities and tasks for determining repairs for a vehicle and alternative transportation for the driver.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Step 2B:
The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[69 above.
Steps [1], [6], and [7] are data gathering and outputting and sending data which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [2]-[5], [8] and [9] are for evaluating / analyzing car conditions and identifying car conditions and repair options and alternative transportations for the driver. These mental steps or well known business activities for analyzing various activities and tasks for determining repairs for a vehicle and alternative transportation for the driver.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, steps [2]-[5], [8]-[9], when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). As for the system claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claims 15-16 (part of 14 above), which deal with further details of the vehicle operation problem parameters (metrics) and analysis, these further limit the abstract idea of the car problem analysis options, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 15-16 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 17-18 (part of 14 above), which deal with further details of the vehicle operation problem parameters (metrics) and analysis, these further limit the abstract idea of the car problem analysis options, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 17-18 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, method claims 14-18 and respective system claims 1, 3-6, and CRM claims 21-24 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/17/26 have been fully considered and the results are as followed:
1) ODP Rejection: new recitation is added to address the amended feature and the rejection is maintained.
2) 101 Rejection:
2A, Prong one and Two:
(1) Response to Arguments 1 and 2: applicant’s arguments are noted but not persuasive. The claims appear to be dealt with improving business efficiency in vehicle diagnostic, maintenance coordination and alternative provisions. As shown above,
“The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).”
The comparison to McRo case on pages 12 is noted but not persuasive. As cited by applicant, McRo contains a specific set of rules to automate a previously manual process in the technical field of “computer animation” and the improvement was achieved through software application operating on conventional hardware. There is no specific set of rules in the current claim nor specific software operating on conventional hardware. The device used in the claim are generic computer devices.
(2) Response to Arguments 1 and 2: applicant’s arguments are noted but not persuasive. The claims appear to be dealt with improving business efficiency in vehicle diagnostic, maintenance coordination and alternative provisions. As shown above,
(3) Applicant’s lengthy arguments on pages 13-19 with repeated citation of McRo case are noted, but in summary, they are basically the same arguments being addressed by the examiner above.
2B Test.
Applicant’s comments on pages 20-24 are not persuasive. As shown in claim 14, as exemplary, recites a method for determining repairs for a vehicle and alternative transportation for a driver.
Steps [1], [6], and [7] are data gathering and outputting and sending data which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [2]-[5], [8] and [9] are for evaluating / analyzing car conditions and identifying car conditions and repair options and alternative transportations for the driver. These mental steps or well known business activities for analyzing various activities and tasks for determining repairs for a vehicle and alternative transportation for the driver.
The technical improvements cited on pages 20-22 are “business problem” for improving maintenance workflow efficiency. These are not considered as technical problem that improves a computer, a device, a piece of equipment, etc. Improving business workflow using a computer does not pass the eligibility test.
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.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6:3-4:30 PM (ET)..
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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights