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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 11/11/25 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 1-20 are pending.
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 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a system and a method; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of generating lease options for a user to leave a vehicle.
Using claim 17 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 1, 11, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
generating vehicle operation data characterizing one or more driving behaviors or vehicle conditions detected during operation of the vehicle;
the one or more driving behaviors are generated using the vehicle operation data to determine a predictive model that identifies a certain level of usage for a user and to identify driving behaviors that contribute to a different leasing options including to change lease terms already existing or create lease terms that are new to be customized for the user;
generating vehicle environment data characterizing a plurality of environment conditions surrounding the vehicle during operation of the vehicle;
generating a driving score based on how the user operates the vehicle and is determined from the analyzed one or more driving behaviors, the vehicle conditions, and the plurality of environment conditions;
generating a plurality of leasing options based on the driving score and a current market data for a specified vehicle,
[claims 1,11 recites: “generating a driving score based on how the user operates the vehicle and is determined from the analyzed one or more driving behaviors, the vehicle conditions, and the plurality of environment conditions”]
determining whether the user has a current lease, and
when the user has the current lease, determining a plurality of changed lease terms and proposing a change in the lease terms corresponding to one or more needs of the user based on the driving score and the current market data for the specified vehicle, and
when the user does not have the current lease, determining a plurality of new lease terms based on the driving score and the current market data for the specified vehicle
The above limitations are reciting a process by which vehicle operation data about a driver/user is analyzed so as to make leasing options available to the driver/user. The providing of leasing options to a user for leasing a vehicle is a legal interaction and/or a fundamental economic practice that represents a certain method of organizing human activity type of abstract idea. Leasing of vehicles and providing leasing options to a user (the criteria for the leasing agreement, the terms and conditions, etc.) based on data, is part of the process of entering into a legal agreement for the lease of a vehicle. People can perform the recited step that are analyzing data to arrive at leasing options for a user and the examiner notes that before the invention of computers, people were the ones that formulated and presented leasing options to users who want to lease a vehicle. For this reason the claims are found to be reciting a certain method of organizing human activity type of abstract idea.
For claims 11, 17, the only additional element claimed is the use of machine learning to perform the step of analyzing the vehicle operation data that is part of the abstract idea. The only step of the method that is/are linked to any technology is the recitation to the use of machine learning.
For claim 1, the additional elements that are not part of the abstract idea is the recitation to the vehicle (not used in the claim in any manner), the sensors for the vehicle (not used in the claim), an onboard electronic control unit coupled to the sensors, the server device with a processor, memory and a database, and the use of machine learning. All that is claimed functionally is the steps taken by the server device to process data and the vehicle, the sensors and the onboard control unit are being recited as part of the system but those elements are not being used in any manner.
For claim 1, the noted judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a server device with a processor and memory and database that employs machine learning and that is merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea in combination with a recitation to a generically recited vehicle with sensors and an OBU, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited server device with a processor and memory, to perform steps that define the abstract idea. The same is noted for the limitation that is reciting the use of machine learning. The machine learning is recited at a high level of generality and can be interpreted as being an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) or can be interpreted as being a link to a particular technological environment that is the field of machine learning (MPEP 2106.05(h)). This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer connected via a network, see MPEP 2106.05(f). With respect to the vehicle with sensors and an OBU, this is reciting a generic vehicle because all vehicles that have been made in the last 2 decades have sensors and an OBU as claimed. This is claiming nothing more than a generically recited vehicle in the claim scope with sensors that are not even used by the server device in conjunction with the functions/steps that define the abstract idea. Because the vehicle with sensors and the OBU are not being used by the system or method in any manner, they are interpreted as being a field of use limitation that is claiming the particular item to be rented. The vehicle, sensors, and the OBU are not related to the functions recited as being performed by the server device and have no connection to the claim in any functional manner. The vehicle with sensor and OBU is not a meaningful limit on the claim scope for this reason. Therefore, the above reasons are indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For claims 11, 17, the only additional element is the recitation to the use of machine learning. The noted judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of machine learning that is being used as a tool to execute a single step to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h) in this regard. The machine learning is recited at a high level of generality and is taken as an instruction for one to use a computer to perform a step of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) or can be interpreted as being a link to a particular technological environment that is the field of machine learning (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Either way, the use of machine learning is a general link to the field of machine learning and does not amount to providing for integration into a practical application.
For claim 1, for step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a server device with a processor and memory and database that employs machine learning and that is merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea in combination with a recitation to a generically recited vehicle with sensors and an OBU, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited server device with a processor and memory, to perform steps that define the abstract idea. The same is noted for the limitation that is reciting the use of machine learning. The machine learning is recited at a high level of generality and can be interpreted as being an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) or can be interpreted as being a link to a particular technological environment that is the field of machine learning (MPEP 2106.05(h)). This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer connected via a network, see MPEP 2106.05(f). With respect to the vehicle with sensors and an OBU, this is reciting a generic vehicle because all vehicles that have been made in the last 2 decades have sensors and an OBU as claimed. This is claiming nothing more than a generically recited vehicle in the claim scope with sensors that are not even used by the server device in conjunction with the functions/steps that define the abstract idea. Because the vehicle with sensors and the OBU are not being used by the system or method in any manner, they are interpreted as being a field of use limitation that is claiming the particular item to be rented. The vehicle, sensors, and the OBU are not related to the functions recited as being performed by the server device and have no connection to the claim in any functional manner. The vehicle with sensor and OBU is not a meaningful limit on the claim scope for this reason. Therefore, for claim 1, and for the above reasons the claimed additional elements do not amount to reciting significantly more. The claim is not eligible.
For claims 11, 17, and for step 2B, the only additional element is the recitation to the use of machine learning. The recitation to machine learning does not amount to claiming significantly more. This is because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to a general link to the field of machine learning that is being used as a tool to execute a step to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h) in this regard. The machine learning is recited at a high level of generality and is taken as an instruction for one to use a computer to perform a step of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) or can be interpreted as being a link to a particular technological environment that is the field of machine learning (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Either way, the use of machine learning is a general link to the field of machine learning and the use of a computer, and does not amount to reciting significantly more.
The claims 1, 11, 17, do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 2-5, 12-14, 18, 19, the applicant is claiming the data that is being used in terms of being driving a predetermined amount to incur milage overages or reciting the types of environmental conditions that are being used or by reciting the type of driving behavior. The claimed elements are reciting the data that is part of the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 9, 15, the generating of lease incentives as claimed is considered to be part of the abstract idea. A human can generate a lease incentive and provide it to the user upon the user performing maintenance as claimed. What is claimed is simply further defining the same abstract idea that was found for claim 11. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 10, 16, 20, the displaying of the lease terms in the vehicle and allowing the user to make selections within the vehicle is reciting more about the abstract idea. A person can sit in a vehicle and read lease options provided to them in a lease agreement and can make selection while within the vehicle. All that is claimed is more about the same abstract idea for claims 16 and 20. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. For claim 10, the processor(s) has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 1, to which the applicant is referred. The use of the processor is taken as an instruction for one to use a computer to perform steps that define the abstract idea, as set forth for claim 1. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 6, the claimed pay as you go option is part of the abstract idea. The recitation to monthly payments is part of the abstract idea and is expressly reciting the economic aspect to renting, which is that payment is rendered for the use of a rental item. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claims 7, 8, the claimed element of the new lease terms including an allocation and accumulation of mileage that may be converted to points or currency, that enables a user to make advances payments, etc., is reciting more about the abstract idea. The same is noted for the attribute of the driver score that may be determined to provide lease incentives to the user in the claimed manner. These elements are part of the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to arguments
The rejection under 112b has been overcome by the amendments to claims 7-9, 15.
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. On page 8 of the reply the applicant argues step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The applicant generally alleges that the claims are directed to improvements utilizing vehicle information and market information to provide a user with options to change a lease so that the lease will better conform to the usage of the vehicle. The applicant argues that this improves the leasing experience for a user. With respect to step 1, the examiner agrees with the applicant that the claims are directed to a statutory category at step 1, as the rejection of record has already stated. However, this does not end the eligibility inquiry and what has been argued does not render the claims eligible because the applicant is arguing the abstract idea.
The applicant argues on page 9 that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception and/or that the claims are integrated into a practical application. If the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, then by definition they have been integrated into a practical application at the 2nd prong. The applicant is arguing the same thing when making reference to the claims being integrated into a practical application and/or not being directed to a judicial exception. If the exception is not integrated into a practical application, then the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea at the 2nd prong, and the analysis would then proceed to step 2B. Step 2A, prong one does not determine if a claim is directed to an abstract idea, that is only determined after doing the 2nd prong analysis.
In support of arguing that the claims are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activities, the applicant repeats the claimed subject matter on pages 9-10 and argues that the claims are “improvements in utilizing vehicle usage information and market information to provide a user with options to change the typically immutable parameters of a lease so that the lease may better conform to their usage of the vehicle, which is based on conforming the lease for a vehicle based the user's actual usage behavior to provide a more economical and enjoyable lease experience for a user, thus improving the vehicle leasing experience for users”. What has been argued is the abstract idea itself. Using vehicle usage information and market information to provide leasing options to a user is a certain method of organizing human activities because it is a legal interaction and/or a fundamental economic practice. Leasing of vehicles and providing leasing options to a user (the criteria for the leasing agreement, the terms and conditions, etc.) based on data, is part of the process of entering into a legal agreement for the lease of a vehicle. This is reciting an abstract idea that is a certain method of organizing human activities. Even if the claimed elements provide a user with a better leasing experience as the applicant argues, that is an improvement to the abstract idea itself and not an improvement to technology or a technical field. The field of providing leasing options to a user is not technology and the result of the claim does not serve to improve technology, or a technical field. Improving the experience that a user has when leasing a vehicle is a result of the abstract idea and is part of the abstract idea. As is recited in the method claims, the majority of the claimed steps can be practiced with no technology at all because none is recited with the exception of the use of machine learning. By virtue of the method claim scope itself, people can perform the claimed steps and the examiner notes that it is people that are the ones that enter into legal contracts for a rental of a vehicle; therefore, it is appropriate to conclude that the claims are reciting a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea at step 2A. Leasing of vehicles and providing options to lease a vehicle is a fundamental economic practice.
The applicant argues on page 10 that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea but are instead directed to using machine learning and models to identify driving behavior that contribute to different leasing options including change lease terms or a new lease terms. The applicant argues that this improves a technical field. As to a technical field, leasing vehicles and using information to provide lease options to a user is not technical in nature and is not a technical field. The use of machine learning is a general link to a particular technological environment that is using a computer and machine learning to execute part of the abstract idea, which does not render the claims eligible for the reasons set forth in the rejection of record. That does not result in a technical field or technology being improved. The result of the claim is simply determining lease options for a user. The process that is used to make the leasing option determination is what defines the abstract idea and is not something that is improving technology or a technical field such that the claims would be eligible at the 2nd prong. The claims are reciting a certain method of organizing human activities that is generating lease options for a user to leave a vehicle. The “directed to” determination is made at the conclusion of the 2nd prong analysis.
The applicant argues on page 11 that the claims are integrated into a practical application. The applicant argues that the practical application is the transforming of data using machine learning and predictive models to identify driving behaviors that contribute to different leasing terms. What has been argued is the abstract idea that is generally linked to machine learning. The claims are not doing anything more than to generally link the execution of the abstract idea to computers and machine learning for a single step of the claim, as the rejection of record states. That does not result in the claims being integrated into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). The applicant is simply generally alleging that the claims are eligible by arguing the claim as a whole, whereas the examiner is looking for arguments directed to the additional element(s) and an explanation of why the additional element(s) provide for integration. The transforming of the vehicle data to arrive at leasing options is what defines the abstract idea and does not provide for integration into a practical application. The abstract idea cannot provide for integration of itself, because it is the additional elements of the claims that are the ones that would provide for integration. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application on pages 11-13. The applicant argues that the claims are directed to “improvements in utilizing vehicle usage information and market information to provide a user with options to change the typically immutable parameters of a lease so that the lease may better conform to their usage of the vehicle, which is based on conforming the lease for a vehicle based the user's actual usage behavior to provide a more economical and enjoyable lease experience for a user, thus improving the vehicle leasing experience for users by utilizing machine learning and predictive models to identify driving behaviors that contribute to a different leasing options including to change lease terms already existing or create lease terms that are new to be customized for the user. In particular, independent claim 1 is amended to recite”. The applicant then repeats the subject matter of claim 1 and generally alleges on page 13 that the claims are applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the exception to a particular environment. This is not persuasive. The alleged improvement that is being argued is found in the abstract idea itself and is not a technical improvement or in an improvement to technology. Improving the experience that a user has when leasing a vehicle is a result of the abstract idea and the use of the vehicle information to determine the leasing options is what defines the abstract idea. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the incorporation of transformation of data for using vehicle usage information and market information to provide a user with options to change a lease, etc., has integrated the claims into a practical application. This is not persuasive because the usage of the information to determine lease options is what defines the abstract idea. There is no transformation occurring in the claims of a physical object or substance from one state to another such that the claims would be eligible. Transformation of data is not something that indicates that a claim is directed to an abstract idea. In Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom (2016), claims directed at collecting information, analyzing the information, and outputting a result were found to be abstract. The court in Electric Power Grid stated the following with respect to the kind of data being collected and analyzed, “Accordingly, we have treated collecting information including when limited to particular content (which does not change it character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas”. Also stated was “And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”. Collecting information and transforming it by processing the data to arrive at new data, absent an improvement to technology or a technical field, does not claim a type of transformation that would render the claims eligible.
The applicant argues step 2B on pages 13-16. The applicant argues that the claimed invention recites significantly more than the abstract idea. The applicant repeats the same argument as previously presented, namely that the claims are transforming data and improving the usage of vehicle information and market information to provide lease options to a user, so that the leasing experience is more economic and enjoyable for the user. For reasons already addressed, this is arguing the abstract idea and the advantages that the abstract idea provides and does not amount to an improvement to technology or a technical field. Usage of data to arrive at lease options for a user is the abstract idea and the result of the claim is not improving technology. The result of the claim arguably does not even improve the user experience because all that is being done is to determine the options, where they are not claimed as even being presented to a user in any manner. The result of the claim is the determination of leasing options for a user to lease a vehicle; which does not claim an improvement that renders the claims eligible. The argued improvement is found in the abstract idea.
From SAP AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. INVESTPIC, LLC:
“We affirm. We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations (in the plot of a probability distribution function). No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the nonabstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.
The same is noted for the pending claims. Even if the user has a better and more enjoyable experience when leasing a vehicle, the improvement and/or innovation lies in the abstract idea, not in the application of the abstract idea by way of additional elements that provide for significantly more or that result in an improvement to technology (assessed at 2nd prong).
The applicant argues Trading Techs on page 16 and argues that the claims include elements that are not well understood routine, or conventional, similar to Trading Techs. The examiner does not find this allegation to be a credible nexus between Trading Techs and the pending claims. There is no specifically structured interface claimed that is solving a problem in the art and that includes recited functionality that is directly related to the claimed structure of the interface, as was the case in Trading Techs. In fact there is no interface claimed at all in the independent claims. The allegation that a lack of a 102 or 103 rejection indicates the claims are eligible is not persuasive. Just because an abstract idea may be new in the art does not mean that the claims are eligible, with a math equation being a prime example of this situation. Also, see the SAP citation above where this very issue was addressed. Novelty or non-obviousness over prior art does not automatically equate to eligibility. The reliance upon Trading Tech is not found to be persuasive.
The issue of the claimed elements being well understood, routine, or conventional in the art is not relevant to the rejection at hand because the issue at hand in the rejection is the use of a computer to use of a server device with a processor and memory and database that employs machine learning and that is merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea in combination with a recitation to a generically recited vehicle with sensors and an OBU, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). This is generally linking the execution of the abstract idea to computer implementation and does not render the claims eligible. Claimed elements do not have to be shown as being well understood, routine, and conventional in a given field at step 2B to have a prime facie case of claim ineligibility. The claims do not recite significantly more as has been argued. The argument is not persuasive.
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 DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626