DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to applicant’s amendments to and response for Application #18/588,203, filed on 09/17/2025.
Claims 1-5 are now pending and have been examined.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
Per Step 1 of the analysis, the claims are analyzed to determine if they are directed to statutory subject matter. Claim 1 claims an information processing device. Therefore, the claim is interpreted as an apparatus. An apparatus is a statutory category for patentability.
Per Step 2A, Prong 1 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims are directed to an abstract idea or eligible subject matter. In the instant case, the independent claims are directed towards an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 is directed to “receive a travel distance, identify a first date on which the travel distance is predicted to be equal to or more than a predetermined distance for each of maintenance items, decide a recommended period to perform maintenance of the vehicle for each of the maintenance items, the recommended period starting from the first date, identify a first maintenance item with an earliest recommended period out of the maintenance items, identify a second maintenance item out of the maintenance items that is different from the first maintenance item, and of which the recommended period will arrive in a predetermined period that includes the earliest recommended period, and decide to perform maintenance of the second maintenance item along with the first maintenance item.” Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, namely a mental process. A human operator with access to the vehicle maintenance recommendation data could receive and analyze the travel data and the available data, identify a first date, decide on a recommendation period for maintenance starting with the first date, identify a maintenance item with the earliest recommended maintenance date, identify another maintenance item and their recommended period that occurs during the first recommended period, and make a judgment regarding deciding to perform maintenance on both the first and second item during that period. Managers of body shops, taxi fleets, truck delivery and transport fleets, and other such managers routinely schedule maintenance around travel dates and times and look for the biggest maintenance needs and the most efficient ways to meet those needs in order to minimize revenue loss and prevent excessive damage from lack of maintenance. The system device simply automates the mental process using a computer. Therefore, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea, namely a mental process.
Per Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims include a “maintenance notification system” that includes “a management server that includes a processor,” “an in-vehicle device which is mounted on a vehicle,” and “a user terminal.” However, these additional recited elements are considered generic recitations of technical element and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements are being used as a “tool to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The additional elements also include the in-vehicle device “transmits a travel distance of the vehicle.” However, absent further detail, this additional element is considered “receiving and/or transmittal of data over a network,” which is cited in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning, citing Symantec and buySAFE v Google. Therefore, this additional element is not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There is also no technology cited as being used for the travel distance transmittal but even of something like GPS was used that would still be considered old and well known in the communication arts at the time of filing of the application. The claims also include the user terminal “configured to display the first maintenance item and the second maintenance item.” However, absent further detail, the display of data on the terminal is considered “receiving and/or transmittal of data over a network,” which is cited in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning, citing Symantec and buySAFE v Google. It is also considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as the display step is not tied to any further action or step based on the display, but the once the recommendations are determined the maintenance items are then said to just be displayed. Therefore, this additional element is not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Per Step 2B of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea by demonstrating an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements of the claims include a “maintenance notification system” that includes “a management server that includes a processor,” “an in-vehicle device which is mounted on a vehicle,” and “a user terminal.” However, these additional recited elements are considered generic recitations of technical element and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements are being used as a “tool to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The additional elements also include the in-vehicle device “transmits a travel distance of the vehicle.” However, absent further detail, this additional element is considered “receiving and/or transmittal of data over a network,” which is cited in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning, citing Symantec and buySAFE v Google. Therefore, this additional element is not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There is also no technology cited as being used for the travel distance transmittal but even of something like GPS was used that would still be considered old and well known in the communication arts at the time of filing of the application. The claims also include the user terminal “configured to display the first maintenance item and the second maintenance item.” However, absent further detail, the display of data on the terminal is considered “receiving and/or transmittal of data over a network,” which is cited in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning, citing Symantec and buySAFE v Google. It is also considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as the display step is not tied to any further action or step based on the display, but the once the recommendations are determined the maintenance items are then said to just be displayed. Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claim is still considered to be directed to an abstract idea as the claim steps in the ordered combination simply recite the logical steps for accessing vehicle maintenance recommendation data, analyzing the data, identifying a reference maintenance item and recommendation period for maintenance, identifying another maintenance item and their recommended period, and making a determination/decision regarding performing maintenance on the reference item and the additional items. Therefore, the ordered combination does not lead to a determination of significantly more.
When considering the dependent claims, claim 2 is considered part of the abstract idea, as the steps can be performed as part of the mental process of analyzing the data and making a judgment/decision. Claims 3 and 4 are considered part of the abstract idea, as the basis for deciding the predetermined period does not change the analysis. Claim 5 is considered part of the abstract idea as acquiring of information, absent further detail, and decision of a recommended period being based on the state of deterioration can still be performed as part of a mental process.
Therefore, claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. Vs. CLS Bank International et al., 2014 (please reference link to updated publicly available Alice memo at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf as well as the USPTO January 2019 Updated Patent Eligibility Guidance.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeflacher, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2005/0080525 A1 in view of Sakurada, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0206149 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Hoeflacher teaches:
A maintenance notification system comprising:
a user terminal (see [0028], Figures 7-13, and [0050]-[0056])
decide a recommended period to perform maintenance of the vehicle for each of the maintenance items (see Abstract, Figure 2, and [0030]-[0031] which teach an assigned tolerance range and maintenance interval and time frame for a plurality of maintenance items for a vehicle)
identify a first maintenance item with an earliest recommended period out of the maintenance items (see Figures 2 and 5, [0030], [0034], and [0038] in which upcoming maintenance items from among the plurality are identified, including the one that needs to be performed the soonest as well as its maintenance interval and tolerance range)
identify a second maintenance item out of the maintenance items that is different from the first maintenance item and of which the recommended period will arrive in a predetermined period that includes the earliest recommended period (see Figures 4-5, [0035]-[0036], [0055], and [0058] in which a second maintenance item, different than the reference maintenance item, is identified which as a maintenance period that will arrive in a predetermined time period that is just after the reference time period within a minimum predetermined interval)
decide to perform maintenance of the second maintenance item along with the first maintenance item (see Abstract, [0035]-[0036], [0041], [0050]-[0053], and [0058])
the user terminal is configured to display the first maintenance item and the second maintenance item (see [0028], Figures 7-13, and [0050]-[0056] in which an interface displays to a user device the recommended maintenance items to address in tandem as a result of the analysis)
Hoeflacher, however, does not appear to specify:
identification of another maintenance item …of which the recommended period will arrive in a predetermined period that includes the reference period
Hoeflacher does teach identification of another maintenance item …of which the recommended period will arrive in a predetermined period that is close within a predetermined distance of the reference period in Figures 4-5, [0035]-[0036], [0055], and [0058].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine identification of another maintenance item …of which the recommended period will arrive in a predetermined period that includes the reference period with Hoeflacher because Hoeflacher already teaches the recommended period of the second maintenance item being close within a predetermined period of the maintenance item reference period, and making the predetermined distance being within a maintenance reference period would make an even stronger case for combining the two maintenance items at one visit, leading to even more cost savings since the second maintenance item does not have to be moved forward at all from their original recommended maintenance period.
Hoeflacher, however, does not appear to specify:
a management server that includes a processor (see Figure 1 #1 which shows the server with multiple processing units, [0032]-[0034], and Figure 2)
an in-vehicle device which is mounted on a vehicle and which transmits a travel distance of the vehicle to the management server (see at least Figure 1, [0034], Figure 5, and [0118] which teaches the on-board device mounted in the vehicle that gathers and provides travel distance information to server)
identify a first date on which the travel distance is predicted to be equal to or more than a predetermined distance for each of maintenance items (see [0061], [0099], [0118]-[0119], and [0121] in which a predetermined distance after which repair/maintenance is recommended for an item is compared to the travel distance to identify a repair recommendation period to be communicated starting on a specific date in which the threshold is crossed)
the recommended period starting from the first date (see [0061], [0099], [0118]-[0119], and [0121] in which a predetermined distance after which repair/maintenance is recommended for an item is compared to the travel distance to identify a repair recommendation period to be communicated starting on a specific date in which the threshold is crossed)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Sakurada with Hoeflacher because Hoeflacher already teaches a system and describes a database and interface, but simply does not specify all the components of the system, and one would expect to have some kind of computer/processor involved and also teaches gathering of telemetric data through sensors, but does not specify an on board device, and an on board device would allow for seamless gathering of data at the vehicle itself, making it more reliable. Further, Hoeflacher based maintenance periods on time frames and other telemetrics, and using predetermined travel distances allows for a more accurate measure base don actual wear and tear of the components and recommendation periods starting based on the threshold being crossed on a specific day allows for time to address the maintenance needs while preventing an extended period in which further damage could occur.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hoeflacher and Sakurada teaches:
the maintenance notification system according to claim 1
Hoeflacher further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to further decide a length of the predetermined period, in accordance with the second maintenance item (see Abstract, Figures 2 and 4-5, [0030]-[0031], [0035]-[0036], [0055], and [0058] which teach an identified tolerance range and maintenance interval and time frame for a plurality of maintenance items for a vehicle)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hoeflacher and Sakurada teaches:
the maintenance notification system according to claim 2
Hoeflacher further teaches:
wherein the higher a maintenance expense regarding the vehicle is for a maintenance item, the shorter the predetermined period is decided to be for that maintenance item (see [0042], [0055], and [0058] in which shorter predefined minimum intervals are associated with more costly maintenance items and/or those which would take more work hours to perform, which is also a measure of expense)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hoeflacher and Sakurada teaches:
the maintenance notification system according to claim 1
Hoeflacher further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to
acquire information related to a state of deterioration of the vehicle (see at least Figure 8 and [0051]-[0055])
decide the recommended period for each of the maintenance items in accordance with the state of deterioration (see at least Figure 8 and [0051]-[0055])
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeflacher, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2005/0080525 A1 in view of Sakurada, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0206149 A1 and in further view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hoeflacher and Sakurada teaches:
the maintenance notification system device according to claim 2
Hoeflacher and Sakurada, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein the higher a degree of importance of maintenance regarding the vehicle is for a maintenance item, the longer the predetermined period is decided to be for that maintenance item
The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the commerce and related arts to lengthen a predetermined period to address higher priority and important items. Companies such as Amazon.com, Apple, IBM, Caterpillar, Ford, and others have done so for at least a decade prior to the effective filing date of the application.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine wherein the higher a degree of importance of maintenance regarding the vehicle is for a maintenance item, the longer the predetermined period is decided to be for that maintenance item with Hoeflacher and Sakurada because Hoeflacher already teaches a predetermined period for the second maintenance item, and the predetermined period being longer for high importance items would give more flexibility to being able to move forward the item since there would be greater possibility of the predetermined period being closer to or within the reference period.
**The examiner notes that it is not clear why the higher priority items would have a longer predetermined period when taking into consideration the dependency on claim 1 since in claim 1 the reference period is set, so having a longer predetermined period would not seem to affect the ability to schedule or nor schedule the secondary maintenance item within the reference period since the reference period is still set and the predetermined period is simply stated to be longer with the higher priority item, not adjusted towards any other period. Therefore, the limitation as written seems arbitrary and the equivalent of insignificant extra-solution activity.**
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 101:
The applicant put forth no arguments but simply laid out the claims as amended. The claims as amended have been addressed in the body of the 101 rejection above.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is sustained.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 103:
The applicant’s arguments have been considered in light of the amendments to the claims, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
The following prior art references were not relied upon in this office action but is considered pertinent to the applicant’s invention:
Schmitz, et al., Patent No. 11,734,653 B2- teaches an on-board device that measures travel distance of the vehicle which upon comparison to predetermined distances triggers recommended maintenance alerts with a time period for fulfillment of the maintenance
Weber, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0357612 A1- recommended vehicle services that need to be addressed at specific travel distances are displayed to a user on a navigation on-board device and identification of secondary maintenance that could be addressed while addressing the identified vehicle maintenance are also shown.
Applicant amendment(s) necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-4:30pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314./LUIS A BROWN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626