DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant's submission filed November 20, 2025, the Examiner has maintained and updated the 35 USC § 101 and 103 rejections.
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 abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations that are considered to be abstract ideas:
Claims 1
Acquires and registers vehicle information
Determines a recommended maintenance window
determine a recommended maintenance window at of an item for which maintenance is due based on a degree of deterioration of a vehicle component corresponding to the item, the degree of deterioration being determined from the vehicle state information by comparing a diagnostic parameter with a predetermined threshold station
Transmits maintenance information to a user of the leased vehicle
receive, a maintenance completion notification including a vehicle identifier, an execution date and time, an identification of the item maintained, and a travel distance of the vehicle at the time of maintenance;
determine, based on the maintenance completion notification, whether maintenance of the leased vehicle was performed within the recommended maintenance window at the predetermined station;
update a maintenance record for the leased vehicle included in the maintenance database in response to the determination that maintenance of the leased vehicle was performed within the recommended maintenance window at the predetermined station; and
output information of a reward to the user when the determination is affirmative, the information of the reward being provided in a screen that is displayed on a display included in the information processing device.
The limitations of independent claim 1, as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely “advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors” because the claims disclose performing advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors comprising collecting information…, transmitting the information…, outputting rewards based on satisfying conditions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of processor, memory, database, wireless communication circuitry, terminal and display. The aforementioned additional generic computing elements perform the steps of the claims at a high level of generality (i.e. As a generic medium performing generic computer function of acquiring, register, determine, transmitting, updating, and outputting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a processor, memory, database, wireless communication circuitry, terminal and display to acquiring, register, determine, transmitting, updating, and outputting amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The dependent claims 2-5 appear to merely further limit the abstract and as such, the analysis of dependent claims 2-5 results in the claims “reciting” an abstract idea The claims the claims do not recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept (significantly more) other than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-5 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2010/0042287) in view of Funkhouser et al. (2018/0025391) in further view of Bishop (WO 2009/021117)
Claim 1: Zhang discloses an information processing device comprising: a processor; ([0016], processor) and
a memory storing a vehicle database, and program instructions that cause the processor toacquire vehicle information transmitted from an electronic control unit (ECU) of a leased vehicle via wireless communication circuitry, the vehicle information including vehicle state information that indicates at least one of diagnostic information and trip history; ([0007]Vehicle information is collected from vehicle sensors and/or sub-systems by an on-board module(e.g. ECU) on the vehicle and/or at a remote facility where the information is wirelessly transmitted to the remote facility. The collected information is analyzed to determine the health of various systems, sub-systems and components so that the remaining useful life of the systems, sub-systems and components can be predicted.)
register the vehicle state information in a new entry of a vehicle record associated with the leased vehicle to update the vehicle record, the vehicle record being included in the vehicle database; (also see[0007], the database is inherently present since you can not perform prognostics or trend analysis without storing data per vehicle)
determine a recommended maintenance window of an item for which maintenance is due based on a degree of deterioration of a vehicle component corresponding to the item, the degree of deterioration being determined from the vehicle state information by comparing a diagnostic parameter with a predetermined threshold; ([0015] Vehicle health monitoring detects anomalies, determines faulty components and sub-systems and predicts remaining useful life of the components and sub-systems)
transmit information including the recommended maintenance window via the wireless communication circuitry to a terminal associated with a user of the leased vehicle; ([0013], Alternately or additionally, the data collected by the on-board module 18 can be wirelessly transmitted by the vehicle 12 to the remote facility 14 through a satellite network, represented by satellite 20.)
update a maintenance record for the leased vehicle included in the maintenance database in response to the determination that maintenance of the leased vehicle was performed within the recommended maintenance window at the predetermined station;([0007] collecting and sending to a remote facility (discloses that new data sent would have to update the old data), and
But does not explicitly disclose receive, from a predetermined station, a maintenance completion notification including a vehicle identifier, an execution date and time, an identification of the item maintained, and a travel distance of the vehicle at the time of maintenance; determine, based on the maintenance completion notification, whether maintenance of the leased vehicle was performed within the recommended maintenance window at the predetermined station; output information of a reward to the user when the determination is affirmative, the information of the reward being provided in a screen that is displayed on a display included in the information processing device.
However Funkhouser discloses receive, from a predetermined station, a maintenance completion notification including a vehicle identifier, an execution date and time, an identification of the item maintained, and a travel distance of the vehicle at the time of maintenance; ([0018] . For example, vehicle usage data may include a length of time the vehicle has been used, mileage information, and specific usage information [0028] vehicle identifier, [0020] The vehicle maintenance history may include completed vehicle services, as well as frequency of service, date of last service, a determination of whether recommended service has been completed and/or verified, and other information. Vehicle maintenance data may be automatically retrieved, for example, from dealership service records, repair shop service records, or may be manually entered by a user and verified.)
determine, based on the maintenance completion notification, whether maintenance of the leased vehicle was performed within the recommended maintenance window at the predetermined station; ([0025 and 0026] discloses service completion within a predetermined window)
output information of a reward to the user when the determination is affirmative, the information of the reward being provided in a screen that is displayed on a display included in the information processing device.([0024, 0025, 0026] discloses value adjustment based on completion of service recommendations displayed via a user interface)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Zhang to include receive, from a predetermined station, a maintenance completion notification including a vehicle identifier, an execution date and time, an identification of the item maintained, and a travel distance of the vehicle at the time of maintenance; determine, based on the maintenance completion notification, whether maintenance of the leased vehicle was performed within the recommended maintenance window at the predetermined station; output information of a reward to the user when the determination is affirmative, the information of the reward being provided in a screen that is displayed on a display included in the information processing device, in order to motivate customers by incentivizing customers to do the recommended maintenance in a timely manner. ([0027] Funkhouser) Zhang and Funkhouser do not explicitly disclose by comparing a diagnostic parameter with a predetermined threshold; However Bishop discloses by comparing a diagnostic parameter with a predetermined threshold;( [0011] Once the stored distance-traveled value equals or just exceeds the mileage threshold value (step 104), the processor 14 activates the wireless transceiver)
It would have it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Zhang, Funkhouser, and Bishop to have included by comparing a diagnostic parameter with a predetermined threshold; Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Zhang, Funkhouser, and Bishop to include comparing a diagnostic parameter with a predetermined threshold, in order to be able to notify customers of that service is due ([0001], Bishop)
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2010/0042287) in view of Funkhouser et al. (2018/0025391) in further view of Bishop (WO 2009/021117) in view of Rivera et al. (US 2013/0054287) in further view of Nicholson (US 2019/0108524)
Claim 2: Zhang, Funkhouser, Bishop discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein
the recommended maintenance window includes a recommended date by which to perform the maintenance is recommended at the predetermined station;
program instructions further cause the processor to increase of the reward the closer that a date on which the vehicle undergoes maintenance at the predetermined station is to the recommended date.
However Rivera discloses the recommended maintenance window includes a recommended date by which to perform the maintenance is recommended at the predetermined station;[0029 and 0035]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Zhang, Funkhouser, and Bishop to include the recommended maintenance window includes a recommended date by which to perform the maintenance is recommended at the predetermined station, in order to to provide convenience to the customer. (Rivera [0017])
Zhang, Funkhouser, Bishop and Rivera do not explicitly disclose program instructions further cause the processor to increase of the reward the closer that a date on which the vehicle undergoes maintenance at the predetermined station is to the recommended date.
However Nicholson discloses program instructions further cause the processor to increase of the reward the closer that a date on which the vehicle undergoes maintenance at the predetermined station is to the recommended date. (see for example [0057])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Zhang, Funkhouser, Bishop and Rivera to include program instructions further cause the processor to increase of the reward the closer that a date on which the vehicle undergoes maintenance at the predetermined station is to the recommended date, in order to motivate customers to save money by maintaining maintenance. ([0057]. Nicholson)
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2010/0042287) in view of Funkhouser et al. (2018/0025391) in further view of Bishop (WO 2009/021117) in further view of Nicholson (US 2019/0108524)
Claim 3: Zhang, Funkhouser, Bishop discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the program instructions further cause the processor to record a count of times the vehicle undergoes maintenance at the predetermined station, within the recommended time period, maintenance window, and increase the reward as the recorded count.
However Nicholson discloses wherein the program instructions further cause the processor to record a count of times the vehicle undergoes maintenance at the predetermined station, within the recommended time period, maintenance window, and increase the reward as the recorded count. ([0115])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Zhang, Funkhouser, and Bishop a to include wherein the program instructions further cause the processor to record a count of times the vehicle undergoes maintenance at the predetermined station, within the recommended time period, maintenance window, and increase the reward as the recorded count of times the leased vehicle undergoes maintenance increase., in order to motivate customers by increasing the number of times to return to the station to receive a reward.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2010/0042287) in view of Funkhouser et al. (2018/0025391) in further view of Bishop (WO 2009/021117) in further view of IM et al. (US 2021/0201598) Claim 4: Zhang, Funkhouser, Bishop discloses the information processing device according to claim 1,the vehicle state information includes diagnostic information, ([0007], Zhang)but does not explicitly disclose the program instructions further cause the processor to determine the degree of deterioration from the vehicle state information using diagnostic information output by the ECU; and set the recommended maintenance window in response to the degree of deterioration exceeding the predetermined threshold.
However IM discloses the program instructions further cause the processor to determine the degree of deterioration from the vehicle state information using diagnostic information output by the ECU;[0013, 0014, and 0018] and set the recommended maintenance window in response to the degree of deterioration exceeding the predetermined threshold. [0099, 0100, 0103] and Fig 10)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Zhang, Funkhouser, and Bishop to include the program instructions further cause the processor to determine the degree of deterioration from the vehicle state information using diagnostic information output by the ECU; and set the recommended maintenance window in response to the degree of deterioration exceeding the predetermined threshold, in order to motivate customers to do preventative maintenance. (IM abstract)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2010/0042287) in view of Funkhouser et al. (2018/0025391) in further view of Bishop (WO 2009/021117) in view of Capriotti et al. (US 2013/0325541)
Claim 5: Zhang, Funkhouser, and Bishop discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the maintenance completion notification further includes a station identifier; and the program instructions further cause the processor to verify that the notification originates from the predetermined station by matching the station identifier, and reject reward output when the execution date and time are outside the recommended maintenance window.
However Capriotti discloses the maintenance completion notification further includes a station identifier; and the program instructions further cause the processor to verify that the notification originates from the predetermined station by matching the station identifier, and reject reward output when the execution date and time are outside the recommended maintenance window. ([0018, 0057]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Zhang, Funkhouser, and Bishop to include the maintenance completion notification further includes a station identifier; and the program instructions further cause the processor to verify that the notification originates from the predetermined station by matching the station identifier, and reject reward output when the execution date and time are outside the recommended maintenance window in order to facilitate the vehicle owner's ability to maintain the vehicle by recording statistics from the vehicle and taking the vehicle for maintenance at the recommended times ([0015], Capriotti)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the 101 rejection by stating, “ The Applicant submits that, as amended, claim 1 is directed to a specific, technological process in which ECU-generated diagnostic information is used with server-side database operations to compute and enforce a maintenance window, and then gate reward output only upon receipt and verification of a structured, station-originated maintenance completion message containing vehicle ID, execution date/time, the item maintained, and travel distance. These features do not relate to an abstract organization of human activity.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees, the applicant’s claims are directed to incentivizing leased vehicle users to service said vehicle at recommended times. Which is considered commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). See MPEP 2106.05(a) - An example of a claim reciting advertising is found in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Ultramercial claimed an eleven-step method for displaying an advertisement (ad) in exchange for access to copyrighted media, comprising steps of receiving copyrighted media, selecting an ad, offering the media in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing the consumer access to the media, and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad. 772 F.3d. at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754. The Federal Circuit determined that the "combination of steps recites an abstraction—an idea, having no particular concrete or tangible form" and thus was directed to an abstract idea, which the court described as "using advertising as an exchange or currency." Id. The applicant’s claims are similar in concept of performing an action in exchange for an incentive. Furthermore merely having a specific technological process is insufficient as evidence of an indication that the limitations are indicative of integration into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Thus the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot due to the updated rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/D.A.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622