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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Amendment” filed on 11/26/2025 has been considered.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application and an action on the merits follow.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claims 36 has not overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/12/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,861,566. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention is being anticipated by Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,861,566.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 fail to remedy these deficiencies.
The claims 1, 8, and 15 recite providing an interactive dashboard, displaying a dashboard including a plurality of vehicle components, receiving a plurality of selections, receiving telematics data, determining, based upon the plurality of sections, a rate of wear of each selected vehicle component, electronically querying an industry data, determining a trip cost based on the rate of wear and the retrieved industry data, and transmitting the message to transfer a maintenance contribution.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite providing an interactive dashboard, displaying the dashboard including a plurality of vehicle components, receiving a plurality of selections, determining, based upon the selections, a rate of wear, determining a trip cost, and transmitting the message to transfer a maintenance contribution steps as drafted, are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of managing commercial interactions and fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a server computing device comprising a processor, the server computing device in communication with a vehicle computing device of the vehicle, a maintenance account computing device, and a maintenance data source”, “a non-transitory, tangible, computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations”, “a client device”, and “one or more sensors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by organizing human activity for commercial interactions and fundamental economic practices. For example, but for “a server computing device, a processor, a vehicle computing device of the vehicle, a non-transitory, tangible, computer-readable storage medium, a client device, and one or more sensors” in the context of these claims encompasses a person manually provides an interactive dashboard, displays/presents a plurality of vehicle components on a dashboard/paper/screen, selects a plurality of selections, determines, based upon the selections, a rate of wear, determines/calculates a trip cost based on data collected, and instructs to deposit/transfer/allocate a maintenance contribution. Claims 1, 8, and 15 disclose insignificant helpful content to further describe content, such as interactive, which is merely descriptive content to further limit the abstract idea but not make it less abstract. The ability of a graphical user interface to receive selections and output data is generic. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by managing commercial interactions and fundamental economic practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving telematics data) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized a receiving or transmitting data over a network (i.e., electronically querying) step as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claimed server computing device, the processor, the vehicle computing device of the vehicle, the storage medium, the client device, and the one or more sensors are not specially programmed and cannot be specially identified. Therefore, the server computing device, the processor, the vehicle computing device of the vehicle, the storage medium, the client device, and the one or more sensors are not considered as “particular machine” (See MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of providing, displaying, receiving, determining, querying, determining, and transmitting in a computer environment. The claimed computer components such as the server computing device, the processor, the vehicle computing device of the vehicle, the storage medium, the client device, and the one or more sensors are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform providing, displaying, receiving, determining, querying, determining, and transmitting steps. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1, 8, and 15 do 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 of using the server computing device, the processor, the vehicle computing device of the vehicle, the storage medium, the client device, and the one or more sensors to perform providing, displaying, receiving, determining, querying, determining, and transmitting steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 20 disclose insignificant helpful content to further describe content, such as the telematics condition data, selection is made to monitor, and the detecting function of the one or more sensors, which are merely descriptive content to further limit the abstract idea but not make it less abstract. Thus, the claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because descriptive content in claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 20 further limit the abstract idea but not make it less abstract. Thus, the claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
There are no additional claim element limitations recited in the claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 20. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 20 are not patent eligible.
The claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 19 recite determining the trip cost, retrieving lifecycle data, determining the replacement cycle, aggregating the trip cost, determining a total cost exceed a maintenances contribution threshold, and transmitting a message to transfer a maintenances contribution step.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 19 recite determining the trip cost, determining the replacement cycle, aggregating the trip cost, determining a total cost exceed a maintenances contribution threshold, and transmitting a message to transfer a maintenances contribution steps as drafted, are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of managing commercial interactions and fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a server computing device comprising a processor, the server computing device in communication with a vehicle computing device of the vehicle, a maintenance account computing device, and a maintenance data source”, “a non-transitory, tangible, computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations”, “a client device”, and “one or more sensors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by organizing human activity for commercial interactions and fundamental economic practices. For example, but for “a server computing device, a processor, a vehicle computing device of the vehicle, a non-transitory, tangible, computer-readable storage medium, a client device, and one or more sensors”, in the context of these claims encompasses a person manually determines a trip cost, determines the replacement cycle, aggregates the trip cost, determines a total cost exceed a maintenances contribution threshold, and instructs to deposit/transfer/allocate a maintenance contribution. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by managing commercial interactions and fundamental economic practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because retrieving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of retrieving lifecycle data) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of determining, retrieving, aggregating, and transmitting in a computer environment. The claimed computer components such as the server computing device, the processor, the vehicle computing device of the vehicle, the storage medium, the client device, and the one or more sensors are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform determining, retrieving, aggregating, and transmitting steps. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 19 do 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 of using the server computing device, the processor, the vehicle computing device of the vehicle, the storage medium, the client device, and the one or more sensors to perform determining, retrieving, aggregating, and transmitting steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 19 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,692,056 to Garner et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0215491 to Liu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0286187 to Munir et al., and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0253109 to Fontaine et al.
With regard to claims 1, 8, and 15, Garner discloses a computer system comprising:
a server computing device comprising at least one processor in communication with a vehicle computing device of a vehicle and a maintenance account computing device associated with a primary account of a user of the vehicle (Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 22-28 and col. 5, line 54); and
a non-transitory, tangible, computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising (col. 1, lines 55-col. 2, lines 6):
displaying, on a client device of the user, the interactive dashboard including a plurality of vehicle components of the vehicle and one or more maintenance accounts associated with the user (col. 1, lines 38-58, col. 7, lines 51-53, col. 13, lines 9-29, The account 122 in a financial institution computing system 108 is created and linked or associated with one or more vehicles at 504. Each of the one or more accounts 122 of the respective users may be linked to one or more accounts 122 linked to one or more network enabled properties 102 respectively);
receiving in real-time, via wireless communication from the vehicle computing device, telematics data collected during a vehicle trip by one or more sensors associated with the vehicle (col. 3, lines 59-col. 4, lines 18, the sensors include environment sensors);
determining, based upon the telematics data, a usage of each selected vehicle component to determine a trip cost for the vehicle trip (col. 5, lines 60-66, Col. 6, lines 46-63, Col. 7, lines 19-53, monitored for usage information, wherein the usage of the product affects one of a service life. Usage information from multiple users 106 can be used to dynamically rebalance the withdrawn amount from each of their respective accounts 122 for the amounts to correspond to a percentage of usage of the network enabled property 102. The information may be provided periodically, e.g., daily, weekly, monthly basis, etc., or provided when requested by the financial institution computing system 108 over the network 104. Examiner notes that in one scenario, usage information is provided by when requested (i.e., daily trip/each trip). Examiner notes that withdrawn amounts associated with usage detected is considered as “a trip cost for the vehicle trip”. ); and
transmitting a message to the maintenance account computing device, the message including the trip cost and instructing the maintenance account computing device to automatically transfer a maintenance contribution payment representing the trip cost from the primary account to the maintenance account (Col. 6, lines 46-63, Col. 7, lines 19-53, Usage information from multiple users 106 can be used to dynamically rebalance the withdrawn amount from each of their respective accounts 122 for the amounts to correspond to a percentage of usage of the network enabled property 102. Adjustment of the amount of time before an estimated time for maintenance, repair, or replacement requires a positive or negative adjustment of the withdrawal amount to account for the cost of maintenance repair, or replacement within the newly adjusted time period.).
However, Garner does not disclose providing an interactive dashboard configured to display a plurality of vehicle components of the vehicle and one or more maintenance accounts associated with the user and selectable by the user using the interactive dashboard; determining, based upon the telematics data and the plurality of selections, a rate of wear of each selected vehicle component; electronically querying an industry data source to retrieve industry data associated with each selected vehicle component; determining a trip cost for the vehicle trip based on the rate of wear of each selected vehicle component and the retrieved industry data; receiving, via a selector displayed on the interactive dashboard, a plurality of selections, each selection associated with one of the plurality of vehicle components, each selection indicating a maintenance account of the one or more maintenance accounts designated to hold funds for replacing each selected vehicle component at an end of a replacement cycle associated with each selected vehicle component, the maintenance account including a plurality of partitions, each partition designated to track one or more maintenance contributions for replacing each selected vehicle component; and the maintenance account allocating each portion of the trip cost to each partition associated with a corresponding selected vehicle component.
However, Liu teaches determining, based upon the telematics data, a rate of wear of each selected vehicle component (In addition, vehicles currently have many sensors whose outputs can be used to estimate “wear and tear” based on the individual driving behaviors of a vehicle sharing user. According to various embodiments of the present disclosure, wear and tear and associated costs can be estimated or determined directly by corresponding sensor signals on specific components, such as brake pad wear sensors. Some components may function normally, then fail suddenly such as an engine low on oil, while other components wear gradually and predictably, such as tire treads. Abstract, paragraph 23 and 64); electronically querying an industry data source to retrieve industry data associated with each selected vehicle component (One or more wireless connections may be used to transmit and receive data from the cloud as represented at 412. Storage and large scale processing of damage models may be performed in the cloud by the CDN on clusters of commodity computing hardware using sensor data in addition to cost information for replacement parts, repairs, and labor, for example, as represented at 416. A cloud-based distributed database management system aggregates large amounts of data across many commodity servers of the CDN as represented at 418. abstract and paragraph 45); determining a trip cost for the vehicle trip based on the rate of wear of each selected vehicle component and the retrieved industry data (a vehicle computing system (VCS) including a processor and a memory communicating with the sensor and programmed to store sensor data associated with a vehicle sharing trip, and a human-machine interface (HMI) communicating with the VCS and displaying a vehicle sharing trip cost using the sensor data associated with vehicle and/or vehicle component wear and tear incurred during the trip. , abstract, paragraph 45);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for dynamic savings based on actual use for network enabled properties of Garner to include, determining, based upon the telematics data, a rate of wear of each selected vehicle component; electronically querying an industry data source to retrieve industry data associated with each selected vehicle component; determining a trip cost for the vehicle trip based on the rate of wear of each selected vehicle component and the retrieved industry data, as taught in Liu, in order to provide dynamic payment calculation or pricing for vehicle sharing operators (Liu, paragraph 1).
However, Munir teaches providing an interactive dashboard configured to display a plurality of vehicle components of the vehicle and one or more maintenance accounts associated with the user (In another example, account association unit 38 may identify a connected device via an electronic application or other interface of a financial services provider upon connection of the connected device to a home network of the user. Account association unit 38 may identify any new connected devices upon connection to the home network. Account association unit 38 may then generate and associate one of financial accounts 40 for a new connected device. For instance, the user may provide a make and model, serial number, or other identifying information of the connected to account association unit 38 via an electronic device (e.g., such as a smartphone or other computing device of the user). Account association unit 38 may then generate and associate one of financial accounts 40 for the connected device. In this example, a user may log on to the web-based interface of a financial services provider using computing device 64. Examiner notes that the connected parts (i.e., a plurality of components of vehicles) and the financial accounts 40 can be generated via an electronic application or other interface of an electronic device, which is considered as “providing an interactive dashboard configured to display a plurality of vehicle components of the vehicle and one or more maintenance accounts associated with the user”, Fig. 2, paragraphs 43-44, 65, and 69-70); receiving, via a selector displayed on the interactive dashboard, a plurality of selections, each selection associated with one of the plurality of vehicle components, each selection indicating a maintenance account of the one or more maintenance accounts designated to hold funds for replacing each selected vehicle component at an end of a replacement cycle associated with each selected vehicle component, the maintenance account including a plurality of partitions, each partition designated to track one or more maintenance contributions for replacing each selected vehicle component; the maintenance account allocating each portion of the trip cost to each partition associated with a corresponding selected vehicle component (a financial account may be associated with one or more connected devices to offset or pay for maintenance, repairs and/or replacement of the connected devices. For example, when a consumer (or “user”) purchases a new connected device, the connected device is linked to a device maintenance, repair, and/or replacement account for the consumer at a financial services provider. In some examples, the financial account may include a plurality of sub-accounts, with each respective sub-account assigned to each linked connected device. The user interface devices may be configured to receive tactile, audio, or visual input and may be configured to output content such as graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for display to the users, e.g., at display devices associated with connected device 18 or connected device 20. Device financing unit 14 may associate the connected device with a financial account designated for the connected device, where the financial account is being provided by a financial services provider (82). In some examples, device financing unit 14 may establish the financial account upon identifying the connected device. The financial account may be a sub-account of a pre-existing financial account provided by the financial services provider (e.g., a pre-existing checking or savings account). According to aspects of this disclosure, device financing unit 14 may generate a sub-account by transmitting an electronic offer to generate the sub-account to an electronic device associated with the user. Device financing unit 14 may automatically transfer funds to the financial account associated with the connect device 18 at the rate of contribution from another account of the user and maintained by computing device 12. Examiner notes that a plurality of sub-accounts of the financial account can be considered as “the maintenance account including a plurality of partitions, each partition designated to track one or more maintenance contributions for replacing each selected vehicle component”. Examiner notes that the user interface devices may be configured to receive tactile, audio, or visual input to control and link the connected device to a device maintenance, repair, and/or replacement account (i.e., sub-account) and may be configured to output content such as graphical user interfaces (GUIs), which is considered as “receiving, via a selector displayed on the dashboard, a plurality of selections, each selection associated with one of the plurality of vehicle components, each selection indicating a maintenance account of the one or more maintenance accounts designated to hold funds for replacing each selected vehicle component at an end of a replacement cycle associated with each selected vehicle component”, Fig. 2, paragraphs 13-14, 23, and 70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for dynamic savings based on actual use for network enabled properties of Garner to include, providing an interactive dashboard configured to display a plurality of vehicle components of the vehicle and one or more maintenance accounts associated with the user; receiving, via a selector displayed on the interactive dashboard, a plurality of selections, each selection associated with one of the plurality of vehicle components, each selection indicating a maintenance account of the one or more maintenance accounts designated to hold funds for replacing each selected vehicle component at an end of a replacement cycle associated with each selected vehicle component, the maintenance account including a plurality of partitions, each partition designated to track one or more maintenance contributions for replacing each selected vehicle component; the maintenance account allocating each portion of the trip cost to each partition associated with a corresponding selected vehicle component, as taught in Munir, in order to provide efficient savings techniques for repairing or replacing a connected device (Munir, paragraph 3).
However, Fontaine teaches providing an interactive dashboard configured to display a plurality of vehicle components of the vehicle and selectable by the user using the interactive dashboard; determining, based upon the telematics data and the plurality of selections, a rate of wear of each selected vehicle component (For example, a decision maker logs into the App through a login screen as shown in FIG. 3a. FIG. 3b is an App dashboard that displays selected fleet historical data and selected real-time parameters from the sensors 22 for respective autonomous vehicles 24. FIG. 3e shows a breakout of real-time tire pressure data from tire sensors 22 for a selected vehicle 24, and FIG. 3f illustrates entry of a decision 42 into the system 50 for the selected vehicle. FIG. 3g shows the status and routing information for a selected vehicle 24, while FIG. 3h shows a real-time breakout of tire wear data for the vehicle. FIG. 3i illustrates tracking of the autonomous vehicles 24 in the fleet to enable convenient monitoring and management of the fleet. Paragraph 40).
Therefore, 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 combination of references to include, providing an interactive dashboard configured to display a plurality of vehicle components of the vehicle and selectable by the user using the interactive dashboard; determining, based upon the telematics data and the plurality of selections, a rate of wear of each selected vehicle component, as taught in Fontaine, in order to measure tire parameter data during vehicle operation (Fontaine, paragraph 1).
With regard to claims 2, 9, and 16, the combination of references discloses the computer-executable instructions stored further cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: determining, based upon the rate of wear of each selected vehicle component, the trip cost for the vehicle trip, the trip cost representative of a cost aggregation of the rate of wear of each selected vehicle component as a result of the vehicle trip (Garner, col. 5, lines 60-66, Col. 6, lines 46-63, Col. 7, lines 19-53, Liu, abstract and paragraph 23, 45, and 64, Munir, claim 1, determining a rate of contribution for the financial account based on the usage data and the one or more cost factors associated with the network-connected device;).
With regard to claims 3, 10, and 17, Garner discloses the telematics data includes a condition of each selected vehicle component and environmental data including environmental factors impacting the vehicle (col. 3, lines 59-col. 4, lines 18).
With regard to claims 6, 13, and 20, the combination of references disclose each of the plurality of selections is made to monitor the rate of wear of the associated vehicle component, each selection inputted by the user (Fontaine, paragraph 40).
With regard to claims 7 and 14, Garner discloses the one or more sensors are configured to detect a condition of the plurality of vehicle components including each selected vehicle component (col. 3, lines 59-col. 4, lines 18).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,692,056 to Garner et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0215491 to Liu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0286187 to Munir et al., and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0253109 to Fontaine et al., and further in view of Japan Patent Application Publication No. JP 2018/010379 to Tanaka.
With regard to claims 4, 11, and 18, the combination of references substantially discloses the claimed invention, however, the combination of references does not disclose retrieving… lifecycle data indicative of an amount of usage, and determining the replacement cycle associated with each selected vehicle component.
However, Tanaka teaches the at least one processor is in further communication with a maintenance data source that includes cost data for the plurality of vehicle components, and wherein the computer-executable instructions stored further cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: retrieving, from the maintenance data source, lifecycle data of each selected vehicle component, the lifecycle data indicative of an amount of usage each selected vehicle component is designated to receive prior to replacement (page 5, lines 9-17, and page 10, lines 12-16); and determining, based upon an analysis of the rate of wear and the lifecycle data of each selected vehicle component, the replacement cycle associated with each selected vehicle component (Fig. 1, 4, 6, page 5, line 51-page 6, lines 13, page 8, lines 29-page 9, lines 9, and page 11, lines 20-page 12, line 8).
Therefore, 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 combination of references to include, retrieving… lifecycle data indicative of an amount of usage, and determining the replacement cycle associated with each selected vehicle component, as taught in Tanaka, in order to effective for preparation of funds for replacement of an object (Tanaka, technical-field).
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,692,056 to Garner et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0215491 to Liu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0286187 to Munir et al., and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0253109 to Fontaine et al., and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0379310 to Madigan et al.
With regard to claims 5, 12, and 19, the combination of references discloses the maintenance account allocating each portion of the total cost of trips to each partition associated with a corresponding selected vehicle component (Munir, Fig. 2, paragraphs 13-14, 23, and 70), however, the combination of references does not disclose aggregating the trip cost to a plurality of trip costs associated with each selected vehicle component; determining, based upon the aggregated trip cost to the plurality of trip costs, whether a total cost of trips associated with each selected vehicle component exceeds a maintenance contribution threshold; and transmitting an additional message to the maintenance account computing device, the additional message including the total cost of trips and instructing the maintenance account computing device to automatically transfer a maintenance contribution payment representing the total cost of trips from the primary account to the maintenance account.
However, Madigan teaches aggregating the trip cost to a plurality of trip costs associated with each selected vehicle component; determining, based upon the aggregated trip cost to the plurality of trip costs, whether a total cost of trips associated with each selected vehicle component exceeds a maintenance contribution threshold; and transmitting an additional message to the maintenance account computing device, the additional message including the total cost of trips and instructing the maintenance account computing device to automatically transfer a maintenance contribution payment representing the total cost of trips from the primary account to the maintenance account (Fig. 6 and Fig.7D, paragraphs 26, 40-42, 65, 96-97, 99, 104, and 152. examiner notes that multiple trips cost in a day can be considered as “aggregating the trip cost”. Once the balance of risk units reaches a predetermined threshold, the number of risk units may be replenished. Examiner notes that total consumed risk unit cost can be considered as “a total cost of trips”. Examiner notes that the remaining risk units cost is below a predetermined threshold, which is considered as “a total cost of trips …exceeds a maintenance contribution threshold”. Examiner notes that risk units consumed during trips can be considered as the total cost of trips. Therefore, the message instructs to purchase and deposit risk units (i.e., the total cost of trips) into an account, which can be considered as “the message including the total cost of trips, the message instructing … transfer a maintenance contribution payment representing the total cost of trips”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for dynamic savings based on actual use for network enabled properties of Garner and Tanaka to include, aggregating the trip cost to a plurality of trip costs associated with each selected vehicle component; determining, based upon the aggregated trip cost to the plurality of trip costs, whether a total cost of trips associated with each selected vehicle component exceeds a maintenance contribution threshold; and transmitting an additional message to the maintenance account computing device, the additional message including the total cost of trips and instructing the maintenance account computing device to automatically transfer a maintenance contribution payment representing the total cost of trips from the primary account to the maintenance account, as taught in Madigan, in order to provide one or more recommendations for improving (e.g., reducing) consumption rate (Madigan, paragraph 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed on 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive especially in light of the new prior art applied in the rejections.
Applicants remark that “the combination of references does not disclose providing an interactive dashboard configured to display a plurality of vehicle components of the vehicle and one or more maintenance accounts associated with the user and selectable by the user using the interactive dashboard; and determining, based upon the telematics data and the plurality of selections, a rate of wear of each selected vehicle component”.
Examiner directs Applicants' attention to the office action above.
Applicants remark that “the claims recite a computer system configured to (a) provide an interactive dashboard configured to display a plurality of vehicle components of a vehicle and one or more maintenance accounts associated with a user and selectable by the user using the interactive dashboard on a client device, and (b) determine a rate of wear of each selected vehicle component based on telematics data received from the vehicle and a plurality of vehicle selections received from the interactive dashboard. In summary, at a minimum, Applicant respectfully submits that the Section 101 rejection should be withdrawn because the claimed invention recites significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.”.
Examiner directs Applicants' attention to the office action above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL J YU whose telephone number is (571)270-3312. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM (M-F).
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, Obeid Fahd A can be reached on 571-270-3324. 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.
/ARIEL J YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627