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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/15/26 has been entered. The applicant states on page 1 of the RCE remarks that claims 1-20 are pending and argues that claims 1-20 are allowable, which is not addressing the correct pending claims. Claims 1-9, 11-15, 17-19 are pending. Claims 10, 16, 20 have been canceled.
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 1-9, 11-15, 17-19, 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 lease 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 based on received data indicative of the behaviors of a driver of a vehicle, environmental conditions surrounding the vehicle, and vehicle conditions;
analyze the vehicle operation data and output the one or more driving behaviors
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 based on the one or more driving behaviors and vehicle conditions;
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,
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 as a plurality of new lease terms, and
when the user does not have the current lease, determining the plurality of new lease terms based on the driving score and the current market data for the specified vehicle
displaying the plurality of new lease terms in the vehicle and allowing the user to make selections for the lease terms within the vehicle; and
implementing a received selection of at least one of the plurality of new lease terms displayed within and received from the 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. The limitation reciting where the lease terms are displayed (in the vehicle and allowing a user to make a selection in the vehicle) and that a user is allowed to make a selection reads on a person reading the new lease terms from paper while in a vehicle and making a selection while in the vehicle. This amended part of the claim falls under the umbrella of being part of the abstract idea. For this reason the claims are found to be reciting a certain method of organizing human activity type of abstract idea.
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 plurality of sensors for the vehicle, 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.
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 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 a 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 is 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. The OBU is claimed but is not involved in the claimed process in any manner. The sensors are being used to detect data, which is claiming a use of sensors that are used in their ordinary capacity to sense data. The claimed sensors are simply detecting the claimed data so that the can be used in the abstract idea to determine the new lease terms. No data analysis can occur if you do not have data to be able to analyze to determine any new lease terms. The collection and receipt of data from the sensors is using a sensor in its ordinary capacity for a data collection step. 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 claims is/are 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. The OBU is claimed but is not involved in the claimed process in any manner. The sensors are being used to detect data, which is claiming a use of sensors that are used in their ordinary capacity to sense data. The claimed sensors are simply detecting the claimed data so that the can be used in the abstract idea to determine the new lease terms. No data analysis can occur if you do not have data to be able to analyze to determine any new lease terms. The collection and receipt of data from the sensors is using a sensor in its ordinary capacity for a data collection step. 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 1-9, 11-15, 17-19, 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 traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. On pages 9-11, the applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea at step 2A. The applicant argues that claims 1, 11, and 17 includes recitations to one or more processors that are configured to receive the claimed data. In reply the examiner notes that only claim 1 recites a processor of any kind. The argument is not commensurate with the scope of claims 11 and 17. For example, the method claim does not require a processor and only recites the use of machine learning for one step. That does not tie the argued steps to a processor as the applicant argues. Regardless, the processor is being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea and nothing more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Just because claim 1 recites one or more processors as being used to execute the steps that define the abstract idea does not mean that the claims do not recite an abstract idea at step 2A. The presence of a computer or a processor in the claim does not preclude a finding that the claim is reciting an abstract idea at step 2a.
On page 10 the applicant is simply repeating the claim language as the reason why the claim is eligible, which is not persuasive. The claim elements identified by the examiner in the 101 rejection at step 2A are those that define the abstract idea. The applicant argues that the entire claim is not falling into the category of being a certain method of organizing human activities which seems to ignore what is actually being recited in the claims and is disagreed with by the examiner for the reasons set forth in the 101 rejection of record.
The applicant argues on pages 10-11 that the claims are improving the field of utilizing vehicle information and market information to provide a user with options to change the parameters of a lease so that the lease can better conform to the vehicle usage of the user. This is not persuasive and is arguing that the abstract idea itself is being improved. The claims do not represent an improvement to technology because there is no technological field that is recognized as being the field of utilizing vehicle information and market information to provide a user with options to change the parameters of a lease so that the lease can better conform to the vehicle usage of the user. The fact that the claims may result in an improved leasing experience for the user does not amount to an improvement to technology. At best this is an argument that the abstract idea is being improved. In buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court stated that "abstract ideas, no matter how groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, are outside what the statute means by "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter", and reference is made to Myriad by the court for this position. Also see SAP AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. INVESTPIC, LLC where it was stated:
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 rationale can be applied to the pending claims. Even if the process of leasing is made more convenient for a user, the innovation lies in the abstract idea, not an application of the abstract idea in the non-abstract realm.
On page 11, the applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activities because they include the use of machine learning. The applicant argues that the claims use machine learning to generate different leasing options for a user. The applicant argues that this provides for an improvement to technology without actually explaining what the improvement to technology is. The result of the claim is that lease terms being displayed to a user so that they can make a selection of new lease terms. The claimed process does not result in any of the technology that is recited in the claims as being improved. The recitation to the use of machine learning is recited at a high level of generality and is nothing more than a link to the particular technological environment of machine learning, where the machine learning is simply being used as a tool to execute the steps that defines the abstract idea. The argument nis not persuasive.
On page 11 the applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application. No reasoning is given as to why. The general allegation contains no actual argument for the examiner to respond to other than a general allegation. From page 11, the applicant argues:
Additionally, while the claims recite steps such as "generate," and "determine," as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the alleged Methods Of Organizing Human Activity are integrated into a practical application of transforming data using 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 and using this transformed data for 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.
It is not clear what the additional elements are that allegedly provide for integration into a practical application. This argument is also not for step 2A as the 2nd prong is where the analysis considers integration into a practical application. As stated previously, providing a better user experience for a vehicle lease does not serve to improve technology and does not render the claims eligible.
On pages 12-13 the applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application. The applicant again argues that:
the claims are directed to the practical application of transforming data and 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
As was already addressed, it is not clear what the additional elements are that allegedly provide for integration into a practical application. Arguing that the practical application of the abstract idea is the practical application of “transforming data….. 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” is circular in nature and is arguing the abstract idea itself. The transforming of the data that is claimed to arrive at lease terms being presented to a user, so that the user to make a selection is arguing the abstract idea. The abstract idea is the use of vehicle information and market information to provide a user with options to change the lease and cannot also be how the claim is integrated into a practical application. It is not persuasive nor does it make sense to argue that the practical application of the abstract idea is the use of vehicle and market information to provide a user with options to change the lease, because this is the abstract idea itself. The argument is not addressing additional elements and how they render the claims eligible with the claims are viewed as a whole.
On pages 12-13 the applicant repeats the claimed invention of claim 1 and bolds certain limitations. Other than the use of machine learning (that was found to be nothing more than a link to the field of machine learning and computers, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h)), the bolded limitations are those that are the abstract idea and they do not render the claim eligible. Other than pasting the claim into the remarks and generally alleging that the claims are integrated into a practical application, there is no argument for the examiner to consider that is addressing the additional elements of the claim and how they render the claims eligible.
On page 13 the applicant summarizes some of the 101 consideration that are evaluated when determining if a claimed invention has been integrated into a practical application. The applicant then generally alleges that the claimed invention applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not persuasive. The applicant again argues that the integration into a practical application is the use of the vehicle information and market information, etc., to arrive at lease terms for a user to select from. This is not persuasive for the same reasons already addressed by the examiner for this same argument. The abstract idea is the use of vehicle information and market information to provide a user with options to change the lease and cannot also be how the claim is integrated into a practical application. It is not persuasive nor does it make sense to argue that the practical application of the abstract idea is the use of vehicle and market information to provide a user with options to change the lease, because this is the abstract idea itself.
With respect to the argued eligibility considerations cited by the applicant, the examiner provides the following comments:
- An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer,
or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
This is not applicable to the claims because the claims do not reflect an improvement to the function of a computer or any of the technology recited in the claims.
- An additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular
treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
This is not applicable to the claims that do not recite any treatment of a disease or medical condition
- An additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral
to the claim;
No particular machine or manufacture is recited in conjunction with the abstract idea. Reciting the use of machine learning or one or more processors does not amount to reciting a particular machine as the claimed one or more processors are reciting generic computing technology.
- An additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article
to a different state or thing; and
The claims do not transform a physical object or substance from one state to another in a meaningful manner. Nothing physical is transformed in the claims. Data itself does not qualify for the transformation part of the eligibility inquiry as is set forth in the MPEP.
- An additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
There are no additional elements claimed that would satisfy the above consideration such that the claims would be considered eligible. The allegation that the claims satisfy this consideration is not persuasive for reasons already addressed.
The general allegation on page 14 that argues the amended claimed subject matter reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field and is thus patent eligible is not persuasive. The applicant has not explained what the alleged improvement is and has not linked the improvement to anything claimed. As was stated previously, making the leasing process more enjoyable for a user (more economical, a better leasing experience) is not providing for an improvement to technology. The general allegation is not persuasive.
On page 15 the applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more. The applicant argues that when the additional elements are viewed in combination with the claim as a whole, they are providing significantly more. The applicant argues that claims 1, 11, 17 recite an inventive concept because the claims provide for the transforming of data and improvements to vehicle usage information and market information to provide a user with options to change a lease. This is not persuasive and has already been addressed by the examiner. The claimed use of the data and generating of the lease options for a user to select from is what defines the abstract idea. As was stated previously, the claims do not provide for an improvement to technology because none of the technology claimed is being improved. The use of the vehicle information and market information to provide a user with a cost effective and more enjoyable lease experience does not translate into an improvement to any technology and is arguing the abstract idea itself, not any additional elements of the claims.
On pages 15-16 the applicant argues that the claims recite a plurality of sensors, an OBU (the OBU is not used in any manner in the claim, does not contribute to any function being performed), and a server that comprises memory, database, and one or more processors. The applicant also argues the generation of the vehicle operation data, the predictive model, the generation of the score, the display of the new lease terms (not tied to any technology at all) and receiving a selection from the user of new lease terms, all of which are part of the abstract idea. The argument is not persuasive and is little more than a general allegation that the claims recite significantly more. The applicant has not provided any explanation as to why the combination of the argued elements (some of which are defining the abstract idea itself) amount to significantly more. Bolding the claim elements found on pages 16-17 with an allegation that the claim recites significantly more is no more than a general statement of disagreement with the examiner that is not persuasive. The additional elements do not provide for significantly more for the reasons set forth in the rejection of record. The argument is not persuasive.
On page 16 the applicant argues Trading Techs and argues that the claims have not been rejected under 35 USC 102 or 103 so they are not conventional and are eligible. This argument is not persuasive and has no merit as the novelty or non-obviousness of a given judicial exception does not equate to the claims being eligible. Also, the claims do not recite a GUI of any kind in the claims so the citation to Trading Tech is not persuasive. As was stated in SAP that has been cited by the examiner:
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)
Defining over the prior art does not equate to a claim being eligible because it is not considered to be well understood, routine, or conventional. The eligibility analysis does not instruct examiners that when a claim does not have prior art applied to that means that the claim is considered to not be “well understood, routine, and conventional” and is thus eligible. The opposite is true, even novel or non-obvious abstract ideas are still abstract ideas. A math equation can be novel over prior art, but is ineligible subject matter. The courts have made it clear that the allowability of a claim over prior art is not dispositive to the eligibility issue. For this reason the argument is not persuasive. Only those elements that have been found to be an insignificant extra solution activity at the 2nd prong are to be reassessed at step 2B for their well understood, routine, and conventional nature. That is not the situation at hand in the claims. The argument that the claims are not well understood, routine, or conventional because the claims are not rejected under prior art is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Krishnamurthy et al. (20210312500) discloses a system and method that includes using a profile score for a user to determine if the usage of a vehicle by a user is better suited to a new vehicle with a new lease, see paragraph 037. Discloses is that information such as miles driven is used to determine a recommendation for a new vehicle and for a new lease for the new vehicle. This is relevant to the overall concept at hand in the claims that is analyzing driver data to determine if the driver can benefit from changed lease terms.
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
Prosecution Insights