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 .
1. Claims 1-3 filed 03/06/2024 are pending for examination.
2. Continuity: The application does not claim any continuity.
3. IDS:P No IDS has been filed.
4. Pro-Se Application: It appears that the applicant in this application is a pro se applicant (an inventor filing the application alone without the benefit of a Patent Attorney or Agent). Applicant may not be aware of the preferred methods of ensuring timely filing of responses to communications from the Office and may wish to consider using the Certificate of Mailing or the Certificate of Transmission procedures outlined below.
4.1. CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
To ensure that the Applicant's mailed response is considered timely filed, it is advisable to include a "certificate of mailing" on at least one page (preferably on the first page) of the response. This "certificate" should consist of the following statement:
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service as first-class mail in an envelope addressed to: "Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box
1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450” on (date). (Typed or printed name of the person signing this certificate)
(signature)
4.2. CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION
Alternatively, if applicant wishes to respond by facsimile rather than by mail, another method to ensure that the Applicant's response is considered timely filed, is to include a "certificate of transmission" on at least one page (preferably on the first page) of the response. This method should be used by foreign applicants without access to the U.S. Postal Service. This "certificate" should consist of the following statement:
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (571) 273-8300 (date). (Typed or printed name of the person signing this certificate)
(signature)
These "Certificates" may appear anywhere on the page, and may be handwritten or typed. They must be signed, and the date must be the actual date on which it is mailed or transmitted.
For the purpose of calculating extensions of time, the date shown on the certificate will be construed as the date on which the paper was received by the Office, regardless of the date the U.S. Postal Service actually delivers the response, or the fax is “date-stamped” in. In this way, postal or transmission delays do not affect the extension-of-time fee.
In the event that a communication is not received by the Office, applicant's submission of a copy of the previously mailed or transmitted correspondence showing the originally signed Certificate of Mailing or Transmission statement thereon, along with a statement from the person signing the statement which attests to the timely mailing or transmitting of the correspondence, would be sufficient evidence to entitle the applicant to the mailing or transmission date of the correspondence as listed on the Certificate of Mailing or Transmission, respectively.
4.3. NOTICE TO APPLICANT: In the case of lost or late responses the use of other “receipt producing” forms of mailing a correspondence to the Patent Office, such as Certified Mail, or a private shipper such as FedEx, WILL NOT result in the applicant getting the benefit of the mailing date on such receipts. These receipts are not considered to be acceptable evidence since there is nothing to “tie-in” the receipt with the particular document allegedly submitted.
Written Description Requirement. Applicant’s Specification does not explain how a tiny house is designed from photographs of cars (Claim 1), how the tiny house designs are facilitated via the app (Claim 2), and/or how non-car material for building a tiny house can be added (Claim 3).
Drawings
5. The drawings filed 07/29/2024 are not acceptable because , per the Office Notice, “ NOTICE TO FILE CORRECTED APPLICATION PAPERS 05/10/2024 “, the drawings are not submitted. These drawings are objected because figures 1a, 1b, and 1c appear to be photographs or copies of photographs on paper that is not plain and white. The drawings must be on paper that has a white background. For example, drawings on graph paper, lined paper, or paper that has a non- white background are not acceptable. See 37 CFR 1.84(e). Replacement drawing sheets presented on plain, white paper in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84 and 1.121(d) are required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
6 Note: Since among the claims 1-3 ,as drafted, none of them refers to a preceding claim, each of the claims is considered an independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
7.1. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims 1 and 3 contains subject matter, “ 1) Clients get electric vehicle built to their liking through fillable questionnaire provided by a freelancer. 3)Clients can be guided by freelancer for approval through the various stages of the ev being built.” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant’s Specification merely describes using a software application to custom design an ev car by a freelancer based on answers from the user, but does not describes any steps of building an ev car and what are the various stages while building the ev car and how those stages are obtained. See MPEP 2163 (I)(B) and 2163.05. Written description requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See MPEP 2163, 2163.02, and 2163.03.
7.2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. These claims are omnibus type claims, and are considered indefinite because they do not clearly point out the specific features of the invention providing steps and details how the ev car is built and describing different stages for approval. Instead, the claims 1 and 3 , refer to general statements of building an ev car which attempt to claim everything, including aspects of prior art, and lacks a definite boundary.
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
8.1. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because none of the claims, as drafted, recite a preamble claiming either of a useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. It is unclear which one of the statutory categories is claimed. Thus, claims 1, 2, and 3 are non-statutory.
8.2. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1and 3, as drafted do not claim any statutory category and as such are non-statutory.
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 1 and 3 recite:
1) Clients get electric vehicle built to their liking through fillable questionnaire provided by a freelancer.
3)Clients can be guided by freelancer for approval through the various stages of the ev being built.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1 and 3 recite abstract idea.
The limitations in both the claims 1 and 3 , under their broadest reasonable interpretation relate to managing interactions between people , that is between a user /purchaser of an ev car and a freelancer to receive answers to a set of questions for customizing a design for an ev car and for approval at different stages of the ev car being built falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping.
Thus, claims 1 and 2 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1 and 3: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Since claim 1 and 3 , as drafted, do not recite additional element, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 1 and 3 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1 and 3 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are analyzed as not reciting any additional elements , the limitations of claims 1 and 3 do not amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
Thus, as per Step 2B, claims 1 and 3 do not provide any inventive steps and are patent ineligible.
9. Note: --The bolded text represents “[[emphasis added to the relevant text]] direct quotes from the references are in a smaller and italic font.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alqadri et al., “Ontology-based Conversational Recommender System for Electric Vehicles”; published in 2023 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Cybernetics Technology & Applications” , pages 426-430 and downloaded from IEEE Explore via IP. Com on October 21, 2025 , hereinafter Alqadri
Reference claim 1, Alqadri teaches that clients get electric vehicle built to their liking through fillable questionnaire provided by a freelancer [See page 426, “ propose a conversational recommender system [CRS} for electric vehicles that considers buyers’ functional requirements….Recommendations can help them select the best product when there are multiple options and varying buyer requirements ……CRS is a knowledge-based recommender system that constructs a user model and makes product recommendations based on user interactions. CRS divides the conversation process into two strategies: navigation by asking (NBA) and navigation by proposing (NBP). The NBA strategy will elicit the user's initial preferences, provide product recommendations, and explain the product recommendations based on the user's initial preferences. The NBP strategy provides initial recommendations as examples, solicits user feedback on the recommendations, and refines the recommendation results based on user feedback [4], [6]. CRS can be created by integrating both strategies to resemble a customer's interaction with a product expert, such as a car dealership. “, See page 427, “ Fig. 1 depicts the system's overall flow, consisting of the user model, recommendation, and user interface components. The user model component generates initial questions regarding the user's product preferences and constructs a user model based on the preferences obtained. The recommendation component generates recommendations based on the user model and explains the generated recommendations. The user interface component provides an interactive interface between the system and the user, displaying the recommendations and explanations generated by the previous components.”. See page 430, “ Fig. 11 is a message that the system displays when the number of generated recommendations is excessive, indicating that there are still numerous options to consider. To further assist the user, if the user presses the OK button, the system will present additional questions generated by the query refinement process, aiming to narrow down the choices. ….Fig. 12 shows the page that appears during the query refinement process, displaying the additional questions generated to refine functional requirements. Fig. 13 shows the initial result if the system successfully provides appropriate recommendations according to the functional requirements. On this page, buyers can select the products they prefer from the available options, leading them to the final recommendation, shown in Fig.14.” Here, Alqadri teaches using a conversational recommender system [an app] for customizing an electrical vehicle by proposing questions on a page which can be answered by the user indicating his preferences, choices, functional requirements and recommendations are displayed by an expert [ corresponds to the claimed freelancer].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
11.1. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006273060 A, hereinafter JP’060 A.
Regarding claim 2, JP ‘ 060 A teaches and renders obvious a Databank with wide selection of ev parts graphics “ The vehicle information display apparatus according to the present invention includes a control unit that generates drawing data to display desired information and a display unit that performs display based on the drawing data via a communication unit. The vehicle information display device comprises: the control means selects desired part data from a part database storing a plurality of part data constituting the drawing data, and based on transmission history data The newly selected component data is transmitted by the communication means. . “. ]. This excerpt from JP’360 teaches maintaining a databank for vehicle parts drawings that can be displayed but it does not teach that the vehicle is an electric vehicle. Since the claim does not provide details as how the databank is created or any specific information, the claim limitations merely amount to maintaining ev parts data which can be used for displaying and selection. JP’060 teaches the same except that the vehicle is of different kind but the same process and structure can be used for any other type of vehicle including an electric vehicle or diesel driven vehicle or truck. Therefore, in view of the teachings of JP’060 in the same field of endeavor maintaining data for vehicle parts graphics, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the same process and structure of JP’ 060 to maintain a databank with wide selection of ev parts graphics.
11.2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archer [US 2023/0108774 A1].
Reference claim 3, Archer teaches and renders obvious guiding clients for approval through the various stages of ev being built [ See para 0253, “ The jobsite service provides the user with construction project management functionality that allows the user to control or monitor every part of a construction project from design to final commissioning. Simple interfaces allow the user to budget, monitor compliance with deadlines, manage building drawings, manage approval from project stakeholders, create tasks for workers, and follow the completion of each stage of the project.”] . Archer does not teach that such approval is provided for an electric vehicle. Since the claim does not provide details what steps are taken and how the approval at various stages is done for an electric vehicle, the claim limitations merely amount to a concept of conducting approval at various stages of a manufacturing process and since Archer does teach the concept of guiding stakeholders [correspond to clients] for approval of the item at various stages, then it read on the claimed limitations except the item electric vehicle is different. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Arche, in the same field of endeavor providing approval at various stages of manufacturing process for an item, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the same concept, process and structure of Archer to guide clients for approval through the various stages of manufacturing an electric vehicle.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Foreign references:
(i) KR 2114843 B1 describes an interactive module for a custom-built electric vehicle based on emotion of users with a terminal device e.g. desktop computer and mobile phone, for an automotive industry.
(ii) KR 20180037348A, see describes building a custom electric vehicle describing including a lower chassis of the customer-built electric vehicle 1, installing and connecting front and rear wheels.
NPL reference
(iii) Babu et al. "Performance evaluation of Autonomous and Connected Electric Vehicles (ACEVs) towards buying intention in India: Forward trend in energy efficiency," 2022 International Interdisciplinary Humanitarian Conference for Sustainability (IIHC), Bengaluru, India, 2022, pp. 74-79, retrieved from IP. Com on 10/21/2025 describes evaluating performance of autonomous and connected electric vehicles (ACEVs) with consumers' buying behaviour as the same will assist the consumer community towards decision making.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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, Kelly Campen can be reached at 571-272-6740. 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.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688