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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 7, 10, 12, 16, 19 have been amended.
Claims have been cancelled.
Claims have been added.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/602439, filed on April 8, 2024.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 3, 7, 12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 3, 7, 12, 16, the Examiner asserts that the claims suffer from numerous issues that render the claims indefinite and difficult to determine how the claimed invention is intended to be carried out or what the claimed invention is attempting to convey.
First, “determining whether the maintenance cost represents a first value” does not make sense because “cost” is a value, therefore, “maintenance cost” already represents a “first value”.
Second, “determining whether the maintenance cost represents a second value higher than the first value” does not make sense because if a first value was already determined, how can the same “maintenance cost” also represent another value, i.e. “second value”. Are there multiple maintenance costs? Are multiple calculations being performed in order to calculate various scenarios? How is the maintenance cost being determined? If there are multiple maintenance costs, how are they being determined?
Third, “determining that the maintenance cost represents one of the first value and the second value higher than the first value” does not make sense because the previous two limitations already recite that the maintenance cost is determined to represent the first and second values. Is the limitation attempting to recite that a determination is made to determine whether the maintenance cost is the first value or the second value? If there is only one maintenance cost, how is the second value determined? That is to say, because the maintenance cost is determined to represent a first value, then how can it be determined to be a second value. Moreover, if there is only one maintenance cost, then how is the second value determined? That is to say, if the maintenance cost is determined to be a second value, then a first value was never determined. This, in turn, creates the paradox that if there is only one maintenance cost, in this case, second value, then a first value was never determined and a determination that the second value is higher than the first value cannot be performed.
Fourth, with regards to the last two limitations, the Examiner does not understand what the end result is supposed to be. The recited scheduling process does not make sense. The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention does not establish a time frame or frame of reference to determine how the scheduling is intended to be performed. What are the first and second durations? Moreover, ¶ 34 further clouds the issue because it recites that the scheduled visit period and recommended time period do not overlap because the dates are different, but then later recites that they are the same dates but different times. Although it appears that ¶ 34 is simply stating that the two time periods are periods of time that do not occur as the same time, i.e. 12:00 PM or 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM, the explanation becomes confusing because two opposing definitions have been provided, i.e. the periods are not the same date, but then later states that the periods can be the same date. This is a very confusing explanation to simply state that the time periods do not occur during the same time frame, i.e. 12:00 PM or 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM, and, as a result, makes it difficult to determine what the “predetermined time period” should be and its corresponding start time, especially because claim 1 recites, “a recommended period…within a predetermined period that includes the scheduled time visit period.” If the scheduled time visit period is 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM and because the predetermined time period includes the scheduled time period, i.e. 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM, and the recommended period is within the predetermined time period, then this results in the recommended time period and scheduled visit time period being with the same time bands.
With that said, when determining the start time of the predetermined time period, what are the first and second durations from the current time? What is the “current time”? Is it the date, minute, second? Is it the time when a service was completed? Is the start time the beginning of a window (predetermined time period) when a service can be recommended when the user is making a scheduled service, e.g., if tires are replaced every 25,000 miles and an oil change is performed every 3,000 miles or 3 months and the vehicle currently has 25,000 and it has been 2 months and 25 days since the last oil change, is the recommendation to change the oil being provided because the beginning of the predetermined window is only 5 days out and since the user is currently in the process of scheduling time replacements then a recommendation to perform an oil change also being provided? Are the claims attempting to recite that a cost-benefit analysis or importance degree analysis being performed on top of a determination on whether to combine more than one service because the user is already coming in for a visit and another service can be performed during that visit? If so, are the claims determining multiple costs/importances to determine if they are within some type of acceptable threshold, e.g., within the user’s budget, waiting too long to perform the recommended service will only increase cost, performing the recommended service too early is a waste of money, a recommended service should be performed at the next scheduled visit because it is an important service, or etc., and based on how they compare against a threshold, then scheduling the services?
The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is so vague that it renders the claims indefinite, which is only worsened with the plurality of time periods that make it unclear what they are supposed to represent or how they compare with one another. The definitions provided in the specification only provide either verbatim support or conflicting definitions and only worsen the issue. The Examiner requests for the applicant to point to where in the specification an explanation of how the invention is intended to be performed is provided and a real-world example to better understand what it is that the claimed invention is attempting to disclose and whether the specification supports such an example. The Examiner asserts that a real-world example is required to best understand what it is that the applicant is attempting to convey and that only pointing to paragraphs in the specification that provide verbatim support and/or described in the same manner as the claimed invention will not help to resolve the issues discussed herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
acquire a scheduled visit period in which a user is scheduled to visit a facility at which the user is able to have a vehicle maintained;
determine whether a specific item is present among a plurality of maintenance items for the vehicle, the specific item being a maintenance item for which a recommended period in which it is recommended to have the vehicle maintained is included within a predetermined period that includes the scheduled visit period, and the recommended period being a period that does not overlap the scheduled visit period, the specific item indicating that a maintenance is recommended to be performed to the vehicle in the recommended period;
acquire item information about a maintenance content of the specific item when the specific item is present; and
determine, based on the item information, whether the maintenance indicated by the specific item is to be performed in the scheduled visit period.
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of vehicle maintenance scheduling, which corresponds to “Mental Processes” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, e.g., having a user acquire scheduled vehicle visits, determine whether an item is present corresponding to a recommended service for a recommended period, acquire item information when the item is present, and determine whether maintenance corresponding to the item should be performed in the scheduled visit or recommended period. More specifically, in light of ¶ 27 of the specification, the claimed invention is directed towards determining whether to combine multiple maintenance visits into less visits, e.g., rotating the tires (recommended service) for a visit scheduled for replacing tires (scheduled service), which is further based on the collection and comparison of information.
The limitations of:
acquire a scheduled visit period in which a user is scheduled to visit a facility at which the user is able to have a vehicle maintained;
determine whether a specific item is present among a plurality of maintenance items for the vehicle, the specific item being a maintenance item for which a recommended period in which it is recommended to have the vehicle maintained is included within a predetermined period that includes the scheduled visit period, and the recommended period being a period that does not overlap the scheduled visit period, the specific item indicating that a maintenance is recommended to be performed to the vehicle in the recommended period;
acquire item information about a maintenance content of the specific item when the specific item is present; and
determine, based on the item information, whether the maintenance indicated by the specific item is to be performed in the scheduled visit period,
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium. That is, other than reciting a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium in the context of this claim encompasses a user determining if an item corresponding to a recommended service is available and, if so, determining whether to combine the recommended service with a scheduled service visit. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium to communicate information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind and/or pen and paper, i.e. collecting and comparing information to determine if an item corresponding to a recommended service is available and, if so, determining whether to combine the recommended service with a scheduled service visit. The generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium can perform the insignificant extra solution steps of communicating information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) while also reciting that the a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper; "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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 using a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium to perform the steps of:
acquire a scheduled visit period in which a user is scheduled to visit a facility at which the user is able to have a vehicle maintained;
determine whether a specific item is present among a plurality of maintenance items for the vehicle, the specific item being a maintenance item for which a recommended period in which it is recommended to have the vehicle maintained is included within a predetermined period that includes the scheduled visit period, and the recommended period being a period that does not overlap the scheduled visit period, the specific item indicating that a maintenance is recommended to be performed to the vehicle in the recommended period;
acquire item information about a maintenance content of the specific item when the specific item is present; and
determine, based on the item information, whether the maintenance indicated by the specific item is to be performed in the scheduled visit period,
amounts to no more than mere instructions 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.
Additionally:
Claims 2, 4, 5, 6; 11, 13, 14, 15; 20 are directed towards collecting and comparing information and, based on a rule, identify options, in this case collecting information corresponding to a scheduled visit and determining whether/when to schedule a recommended service before, at, or after a scheduled visit based on how an corresponding cost or importance compares against a threshold.
Claims 3, 7, 12, 16 are directed towards descriptive subject matter describing a rule that dictates when to schedule and defining time periods in relation to cost or importance quantity.
Claims 8, 17 are directed towards descriptive subject matter directed to describing an intended result, in this case, describing what the scheduled visit is for.
Claims 9, 18 are directed towards descriptive subject matter describing an intended result, in this case, describing what the vehicle is intended to be used for, i.e. vehicle leasing, describing an entity managing the vehicle, i.e. leasing company, and describing the relationship between entities, i.e. leasing company is associated with a facility.
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for determining what and when to schedule maintenance services. Accordingly, the claims 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 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.
Claims 1 – 8, 10 – 17, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (US PGPub 2018/0357612 A1) in view of Barajas Gonzalez et al. (US PGPub 2018/0075668 A1), hereinafter referred to as Barajas.
In regards to claims 1, 10, 19, Weber discloses (Claim 1) an information processing device comprising a processor configured to; (Claim 10) an information processing method to be executed by a computer, the information processing method comprising; (Claim 19) a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors and that cause the one or more processors to execute functions comprising:
acquire a scheduled visit period in which a user is scheduled to visit a facility at which the user is able to have a vehicle maintained (¶ 56, 57 wherein the system acquires scheduled visit information for vehicle maintenance);
In regards to:
determine whether a specific item is present among a plurality of maintenance items for the vehicle, the specific item being a maintenance item for which a recommended period in which it is recommended to have the vehicle maintained is included within a predetermined period that includes the scheduled visit period, and the recommended period being a period that does not overlap the scheduled visit period, the specific item indicating that a maintenance is recommended to be performed to the vehicle in the recommended period;
acquire item information about a maintenance content of the specific item when the specific item is present
(¶ 57 wherein the system receives information regarding a scheduled visit to analyze the specifics of the visit and acquire item information about a maintenance content when the item is present, i.e. identifying a tire, identifying a service (tire service), and determining to provide a free rotation offer as the visit is directed towards tire replacement. The system then allows for the determination of a recommended service, e.g., tire rotation, that can be added to the scheduled service visit, e.g., buying new tires, which is also based on the availability of the part in order to fulfill the additional recommended service. The Examiner asserts that the service/product being upsold/cross-sold is a recommended service as it is a service that does not need to be performed at the time of the scheduled appointment nor is it a service/product that was originally scheduled, but has been identified as being recommended to the user because the user will be in the shop getting their scheduled service.
¶ 34, 35, 36, 43, 51, 59 wherein the user is scheduled for a particular service, e.g., an oil change for a cautious driver after driving 3000 miles, however, the system also takes into consideration other factors to determine what additional services to recommend to the user since the user will be scheduled at the shop, e.g., the system determining that although the vehicle has been lightly used, it has been determined that the vehicle has been driving in a dusty climate and, consequently, will recommend changing the air filter and reasons of why this recommendation is being provided is conveyed to the user, wherein the user can choose to accept or ignore the recommendation.
In summary, the system and method of Weber analyzes various maintenance related information for a vehicle to determine if additional services/products should be recommended to a user based on vehicle usage, e.g., location, time, miles, driver behavior, and the like. As a result, the system is not only able to allow a user to schedule maintenance, but to recommend additional maintenance services/products on top of their regular maintenance. As an additional example, the user has the opportunity to schedule servicing to purchase new tires because 20K miles have been driven. In response, the system can recommend for the user to purchase specific types of tires and rotation service. Additionally, the user has scheduled an oil change and the system can recommend upgrading to premium synthetic and reasons can be provided and the user can perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not to take accept the recommendation that was provided to the user.
Finally, in regards to “the specific item indicating that a maintenance is recommended to be performed to the vehicle in the recommended period”, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner has provided an alternate interpretation and corresponding rejection in view of Barajas in the event that the applicant does not agree with the analysis provided above.); and
determine, based on the item information, whether the maintenance indicated by the specific item is to be performed in the scheduled visit period (¶ 36, 57 wherein the system determines whether maintenance should be performed based on the item information (are the tires available for installation in order to provide the free tire rotation offer, recommending to the user that their vehicle’s tires should be replaced, determining if premium tires are available, and so forth) and whether to perform a tire replacement as originally scheduled, whether to perform the recommended tire rotation at the scheduled visit, or whether to perform the recommended rotation at a recommended period of time (e.g., every 5,000 miles (depending on tire wear, manufacturer’s recommendations, and the like)), which is based on how the customer responds, i.e. accept the offer/service or not;
Fig. 4; ¶ 34, 36, 40, 51, 53 regarding factors that are taken into account by the system to determine when and why service notices are being provided to the user, the user determining/choosing/accepting/rejecting what services to schedule and, in light of ¶ 57, what additional recommended services should be extended to the user that can be performed for their scheduled visit, which, the user can elect to accept or not;
¶ 34, 35, 36, 43, 51, 59 wherein the user is scheduled for a particular service, e.g., an oil change for a cautious driver after driving 3000 miles, however, the system also takes into consideration other factors to determine what additional services to recommend to the user since the user will be scheduled at the shop, e.g., the system determining that although the vehicle has been lightly used, it has been determined that the vehicle has been driving in a dusty climate and, consequently, will recommend changing the air filter and reasons of why this recommendation is being provided is conveyed to the user, wherein the user can choose to accept or ignore the recommendation.
In summary, the system and method of Weber analyzes various maintenance related information for a vehicle to determine if additional services/products should be recommended to a user based on vehicle usage, e.g., location, time, miles, driver behavior, and the like. As a result, the system is not only able to allow a user to schedule maintenance, but to recommend additional maintenance services/products on top of their regular maintenance. As an additional example, the user has the opportunity to schedule servicing to purchase new tires because 20K miles have been driven. In response, the system can recommend for the user to purchase specific types of tires and rotation service. Additionally, the user has scheduled an oil change and the system can recommend upgrading to premium synthetic and reasons can be provided and the user can perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not to take accept the recommendation that was provided to the user.
Finally, in regards to, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner has provided an alternate interpretation and corresponding rejection in view of Barajas in the event that the applicant does not agree with the analysis provided above.).
Weber discloses a system and method that provides a user with the opportunity to include or add additional services to a scheduled vehicle visit and determining what services to perform based on a variety of factors. Although Weber discloses (Fig. 4; ¶ 36, 59) that the system provides information regarding the cost to perform a service, an explanation of why a service should be performed, information to allow a user to perform a cost-benefit analysis and whether services can be combined with a scheduled service, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner has provided an alternate interpretation where Weber fails to explicitly disclose scheduling and performing a recommended service in a recommended period in the scheduled visit period.
To be more specific, Weber fails to explicitly disclose:
determine whether a specific item is present among a plurality of maintenance items for the vehicle, the specific item being a maintenance item for which a recommended period in which it is recommended to have the vehicle maintained is included within a predetermined period that includes the scheduled visit period, and the recommended period being a period that does not overlap the scheduled visit period, the specific item indicating that a maintenance is recommended to be performed to the vehicle in the recommended period;
determine, based on the item information, whether the maintenance indicated by the specific item is to be performed in the scheduled visit period
However, Barajas teaches a similar system and method to Weber as it also teaches recommending to combine services when a vehicle is scheduled for another service. As a non-limiting example, Barajas teaches that if a vehicle is scheduled for brake pad replacement, then it would also recommend rotating and/or balancing tires since, historically, a user has rotated/balanced tires when the brake pads were replaced. Yet Barajas takes this a step further by taking into account other considerations to determine when a recommended service should be performed. Barajas teaches that the system includes a recommender that will analyze importance, consequences, usage, cost, scheduled service, and so forth to determine whether a recommended service should be recommended to be performed with a scheduled service visit or not, i.e. before, at, or after a service visit. Both Weber and Barajas disclose and teach that services can be combined with one another and that services can be combined when the vehicle is scheduled to be serviced for a service that is different from the recommended service.
Weber discloses that brakes are replaced at 25,000 miles, tires are replaced at 20,000 miles, tire rotation can be recommended to be performed with tire replacement, and that the system can take into account the severity or criticality of a recommendation when conveying the information to a user so that the user can perform a cost-benefit analysis (¶ 36, 51, 56, 57, 59). When the system has determined what services to recommend to a user, the decision to perform or authorize the service is up to the user (owner, driver, or the like. This, in turn, provides the user with the opportunity to choose to visit the servicing facility multiple times to perform a respective service, choose to accept and add a recommended service with their scheduled service, or be provided information that their vehicle is being heavily used or used in a harsh environment and, consequently, accept to perform a recommended service at a time that is earlier than what is typically scheduled for that recommended service (¶ 53), thereby adding (or not) the recommended service to a scheduled service visit, which can also result in a user taking advantage of a particular offer, i.e. enticing a user to take advantage and accept a recommended service that would be cheaper if added to their already scheduled service visit. That is to say, Weber discloses that the recommended service can be performed at the scheduled visit because the maintenance cost is equal to or more than a threshold, e.g., discount offer is equal or more than the cost to (for example) rotate tires if it is bundled with tire replacement; or determine to perform the maintenance at the recommended period because the maintenance cost is less than a threshold, e.g., there is no discount.
Additionally, Weber also discloses that the importance or criticality of a service is considered and compared to a threshold to determine whether a recommended service should be performed at a recommended service time or the scheduled service time, e.g., heavy usage may prompt a visit prior to the scheduled visit, typical usage would prompt adding the recommended service to a scheduled service (if tires are being replaced then the user may be interested in rotating the tires to ensure even/proper wear of older tires), or light usage may prompt a visit after the scheduled visit.
Weber also discloses that the system reviews manufacturer recommendations and since the system is already identifying the combining of services with a scheduled visit, then the system can find itself identifying and recommending a manufacturer recommended service with a scheduled visit, e.g., if oil is recommended to be changed approximately every 5,000 miles or 6 months and the tires are being replaced at 20,000 miles then an offer to perform a synthetic oil change at 50% off may be determined and conveyed to the user.
In summary, Weber discloses that the system is capable of identifying and recommending a recommended service to add to an already scheduled service by identifying and comparing recommended services that can be performed within a time frame relative to an already scheduled service visit.
However, Barajas takes this process a step further by explicitly teaching that it is well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle service monitoring and scheduling to provide recommended services to a user and have them added to already scheduled services as this ensures that the user will not forget about performing a service (¶ 4), “assure reliability during a highly important event” (¶ 22), determine whether a recommended services aligns with a user’s schedule (¶ 20, 21), determine if a particular recommended service will be performed within a particular time period or driving distance (¶ 38), determine whether the cost and/or importance is within a threshold to then determine whether to recommend a particular service (¶ 40), and/or determine, based on historical information, whether to recommend a service with a scheduled service.
However, Barajas further expands upon the disclosure of Weber by more explicitly teaching that it is well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to analyze the recommended service to determine an associated cost and/or importance as one of many factors for why the recommended service is being recommended to the user that could be added to an already scheduled visit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to take into consideration cost, importance, manufacturer recommended guidelines, and so forth as part of when a recommended service should be performed relative to when the scheduled visit is to be performed as this would ensure that the user can afford both the scheduled service and recommended service, ensure whether the vehicle will remain reliable during important events, ensure that the vehicle is being properly maintained, and/or ensure that important maintenance will not be forgotten by the user.
In the end, both Weber and Barajas disclose and teach that it is well-known, obvious, and advantageous to provide a system that has been configured to identify a scheduled service visit, identifying additional recommended services that can be added to the scheduled visit, and notifying a user to add a recommended service to the scheduled visit as a means of assuring that certain services are performed within a recommended time frame and assure that the vehicle will remain reliable. One of ordinary skill in the art looking upon the teachings of Barajas to take into consideration cost, importance, and recommended service time relative to a scheduled visit when conveying a recommended service to a user to determine whether the recommended service will be performed before, at, or after a scheduled visit because this ensures whether the customer can afford the cost of performing the scheduled service and recommended service at the same time, whether there is a historical basis for performing the recommended service with a scheduled service, and whether there are consequences and/or scheduling considerations that can come up if a recommended service is performed before, at, or after a scheduled visit.
(For support see: ¶ 2, 3, 4, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 45)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the maintenance service bundling system and method of Weber with the ability to take into consideration cost, importance, criticality, and/or scheduling/calendaring conflicts as factors that can determine whether a recommended service should be scheduled before, at, or after a scheduled visit, as taught by Barajas, as this can reduce the number of visits that a user would need to make to service their vehicle, determine whether the user can afford to add a recommended service to a scheduled service, assure the reliability of the vehicle, prevent importance services from being forgotten by the user, assure that the vehicle if following manufacturer recommended guidelines, and/or determine whether there would be a scheduling/calendaring conflict with the customer.
In regards to claims 2, 4, 5, 6; 11, 13, 14, 15; 20, Weber discloses the information processing device according to claim 1 (the information processing method according to claim 10; the non-transitory storage medium according to claim 19), wherein:
Claims 2, 11:
the item information includes information on a maintenance cost required for the maintenance corresponding to the specific item (Fig. 4; ¶ 57, 59, 60 wherein the item information includes maintenance cost for the maintenance corresponding to the item, e.g., from free to not free); and
[…],
[…];
[…].
Claims 4, 13:
the item information includes information on a maintenance cost required for the maintenance corresponding to the specific item (Fig. 4; ¶ 57, 59, 60 wherein the item information includes maintenance cost for the maintenance corresponding to the item, e.g., from free to not free); and
[…],
[…];
[…].
Claims 5, 14:
the item information includes information on an importance degree of the maintenance corresponding to the specific item (Fig. 4; ¶ 36, 43; Claim 17 wherein the item information includes an importance degree for the maintenance corresponding to the item, e.g., heavy usage requires more frequent servicing of a particular service, performing the service will prevent future issues, and manufacturer recommendations); and
[…],
[…];
[…].
Claims 6, 15:
the item information includes information on an importance degree of the maintenance corresponding to the specific item (Fig. 4; ¶ 36, 43; Claim 17 wherein the item information includes an importance degree for the maintenance corresponding to the item, e.g., heavy usage requires more frequent servicing of a particular service, performing the service will prevent future issues, and manufacturer recommendations); and
[…],
[…];
[…].
Claim 20:
the item information includes information on a maintenance cost required for the maintenance corresponding to the specific item (Fig. 4; ¶ 57, 59, 60 wherein the item information includes maintenance cost for the maintenance corresponding to the item, e.g., from free to not free); and
[…],
[…];
[…].
Weber discloses a system and method that provides a user with the opportunity to include or add additional services to a scheduled vehicle visit and determining what services to perform based on a variety of factors. Although Weber discloses (Fig. 4; ¶ 36, 59) that the system provides information regarding the cost to perform a service, an explanation of why a service should be performed, information to allow a user to perform a cost-benefit analysis and whether services can be combined with a scheduled service, Weber fails to explicitly disclose whether it would have been obvious for the system to consider cost or importance and how they compare against a threshold to determine when to schedule a service.
To be more specific, Weber fails to explicitly disclose:
Claims 2, 11:
the processor is further configured to, in a case where the recommended period arrives earlier than the scheduled visit period,
determine to perform the maintenance corresponding to the specific item in the scheduled visit period when the maintenance cost is equal to or more than a first threshold, and
determine to perform the maintenance corresponding to the specific item in the recommended period when the maintenance cost is less than the first threshold.
Claims 4, 13:
the processor is further configured to, in a case where the recommended period arrives later than the scheduled visit period,
determine to perform the maintenance corresponding to the specific item in the recommended period when the maintenance cost is equal to or more than a second threshold, and
determine to perform the maintenance for the specific item in the scheduled visit period when the maintenance cost is less than the second threshold.
Claims 5, 14:
the processor is further configured to, in a case where the recommended period arrives earlier than the scheduled visit period,
determine to perform the maintenance corresponding to the specific item in the recommended period when the importance degree is equal to or more than a third threshold, and
determine to perform the maintenance corresponding to the specific item in the scheduled visit period when the importance degree is less than the third threshold.
Claims 6, 15:
the processor is further configured to, in a case where the recommended period arrives later than the scheduled visit period,
determine to perform the maintenance corresponding to the specific item in the scheduled visit period when the importance degree is equal to or more than a fourth threshold, and
determine to perform the maintenance corresponding to the specific item in the recommended period when the importance degree is less than the fourth threshold;
Claim 20:
the determining of whether maintenance corresponding to the specific item is to be performed in the scheduled visit period or in the recommended period includes, in a case where the recommended period arrives earlier than the scheduled visit period,
determining to perform the maintenance corresponding to the specific item in the scheduled visit period when the maintenance cost is equal to or more than a first threshold, and
determining to perform the maintenance corresponding to the specific item in the recommended period when the maintenance cost is less than the first threshold.
However, Barajas teaches a similar system and method to Weber as it also teaches recommending to combine services when a vehicle is scheduled for another service. As a non-limiting example, Barajas teaches that if a vehicle is scheduled for brake pad replacement, then it would also recommend rotating and/or balancing tires since, historically, a user has rotated/balanced tires when the brake pads were replaced. Yet Barajas takes this a step further by taking into account other considerations to determine when a recommended service should be performed. Barajas teaches that the system includes a recommender that will analyze importance, consequences, usage, cost, scheduled service, and so forth to determine whether a recommended service should be recommended to be performed with a scheduled service visit or not, i.e. before, at, or after a service visit. Both Weber and Barajas disclose and teach that services can be combined with one another and that services can be combined when the vehicle is scheduled to be serviced for a service that is different from the recommended service.
Weber discloses that brakes are replaced at 25,000 miles, tires are replaced at 20,000 miles, tire rotation can be recommended to be performed with tire replacement, and that the system can take into account the severity or criticality of a recommendation when conveying the information to a user so that the user can perform a cost-benefit analysis (¶ 36, 51, 56, 57, 59). When the system has determined what services to recommend to a user, the decision to perform or authorize the service is up to the user (owner, driver, or the like. This, in turn, provides the user with the opportunity to choose to visit the servicing facility multiple times to perform a respective service, choose to accept and add a recommended service with their scheduled service, or be provided information that their vehicle is being heavily used or used in a harsh environment and, consequently, accept to perform a recommended service at a time that is earlier than what is typically scheduled for that recommended service (¶ 53), thereby adding (or not) the recommended service to a scheduled service visit, which can also result in a user taking advantage of a particular offer, i.e. enticing a user to take advantage and accept a recommended service that would be cheaper if added to their already scheduled service visit. That is to say, Weber discloses that the recommended service can be performed at the scheduled visit because the maintenance cost is equal to or more than a threshold, e.g., discount offer is equal or more than the cost to (for example) rotate tires if it is bundled with tire replacement; or determine to perform the maintenance at the recommended period because the maintenance cost is less than a threshold, e.g., there is no discount.
Additionally, Weber also discloses that the importance or criticality of a service is considered and compared to a threshold to determine whether a recommended service should be performed at a recommended service time or the scheduled service time, e.g., heavy usage may prompt a visit prior to the scheduled visit, typical usage would prompt adding the recommended service to a scheduled service (if tires are being replaced then the user may be interested in rotating the tires to ensure even/proper wear of older tires), or light usage may prompt a visit after the scheduled visit.
Weber also discloses that the system reviews manufacturer recommendations and since the system is already identifying the combining of services with a scheduled visit, then the system can find itself identifying and recommending a manufacturer recommended service with a scheduled visit, e.g., if oil is recommended to be changed approximately every 5,000 miles or 6 months and the tires are being replaced at 20,000 miles then an offer to perform a synthetic oil change at 50% off may be determined and conveyed to the user.
In summary, Weber discloses that the system is capable of identifying and recommending a recommended service to add to an already scheduled service by identifying and comparing recommended services that can be performed within a time frame relative to an already scheduled service visit.
However, Barajas takes this process a step further by explicitly teaching that it is well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle service monitoring and scheduling to provide recommended services to a user and have them added to already scheduled services as this ensures that the user will not forget about performing a service (¶ 4), “assure reliability during a highly important event” (¶ 22), determine whether a recommended services aligns with a user’s schedule (¶ 20, 21), determine if a particular recommended service will be performed within a particular time period or driving distance (¶ 38), determine whether the cost and/or importance is within a threshold to then determine whether to recommend a particular service (¶ 40), and/or determine, based on historical information, whether to recommend a service with a scheduled service.
However, Barajas further expands upon the disclosure of Weber by more explicitly teaching that it is well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to analyze the recommended service to determine an associated cost and/or importance as one of many factors for why the recommended service is being recommended to the user that could be added to an already scheduled visit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to take into consideration cost, importance, manufacturer recommended guidelines, and so forth as part of when a recommended service should be performed relative to when the scheduled visit is to be performed as this would ensure that the user can afford both the scheduled service and recommended service, ensure whether the vehicle will remain reliable during important events, ensure that the vehicle is being properly maintained, and/or ensure that important maintenance will not be forgotten by the user.
In the end, both Weber and Barajas disclose and teach that it is well-known, obvious, and advantageous to provide a system that has been configured to identify a scheduled service visit, identifying additional recommended services that can be added to the scheduled visit, and notifying a user to add a recommended service to the scheduled visit as a means of assuring that certain services are performed within a recommended time frame and assure that the vehicle will remain reliable. One of ordinary skill in the art looking upon the teachings of Barajas to take into consideration cost, importance, and recommended service time relative to a scheduled visit when conveying a recommended service to a user to determine whether the recommended service will be performed before, at, or after a scheduled visit because this ensures whether the customer can afford the cost of performing the scheduled service and recommended service at the same time, whether there is a historical basis for performing the recommended service with a scheduled service, and whether there are consequences and/or scheduling considerations that can come up if a recommended service is performed before, at, or after a scheduled visit.
(For support see: ¶ 2, 3, 4, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 45)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the maintenance service bundling system and method of Weber with the ability to take into consideration cost, importance, criticality, and/or scheduling/calendaring conflicts as factors that can determine whether a recommended service should be scheduled before, at, or after a scheduled visit, as taught by Barajas, as this can reduce the number of visits that a user would need to make to service their vehicle, determine whether the user can afford to add a recommended service to a scheduled service, assure the reliability of the vehicle, prevent importance services from being forgotten by the user, assure that the vehicle if following manufacturer recommended guidelines, and/or determine whether there would be a scheduling/calendaring conflict with the customer.
In regards to claims 3, 12, the combination of Weber and Barajas, as best understood, in light of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), discloses the information processing device according to claim 2 (the information processing method according to claim 11), wherein the processor is further configured to:
In regards to:
schedule, depending on the maintenance cost and while a period from an end of the scheduled visit period to a start of a next scheduled visit period remains fixed, a start time of the predetermined period by:
determining whether the maintenance cost represents a first value;
determining whether the maintenance cost represents a second value higher than the first value;
determining that the maintenance cost represents one of the first value and the second value higher than the first value;
(Fig. 4; ¶ 57, 59, 60 wherein the item information includes maintenance cost for the maintenance corresponding to the item, e.g., from free to not free; ¶ 57 wherein a free tire rotation will be provided if performed with the scheduled visit of a tire replacement and wherein the tire rotation will not be performed for free if performed before or after the scheduled tire replacement; ¶ 36, 43, 57 wherein prolonging a particular recommended service can result in consequences as a particular recommended service is vital to the proper operation of the vehicle, e.g., prolonging an oil change can result in damaging the engine, which, in turn, can result in the engine no longer being able to operate (seizing) and/or larger cost to service the vehicle in order to address additional damage due to not changing the oil, wherein changing the oil (for a combustion based vehicle) is an important type of service that should be performed based on usage/time);
[…]; and
[…].
Weber discloses a system and method that provides a user with the opportunity to include or add additional services to a scheduled vehicle visit and determining what services to perform based on a variety of factors. Although Weber discloses (Fig. 4; ¶ 36, 59) that the system provides information regarding the cost to perform a service, an explanation of why a service should be performed, information to allow a user to perform a cost-benefit analysis and whether services can be combined with a scheduled service, Weber fails to explicitly disclose whether it would have been obvious for the system to consider cost or importance and how they compare against a threshold to determine when to schedule a service.
To be more specific, Weber fails to explicitly disclose:
based on determining that the maintenance cost represents the first value, scheduling the start time of the predetermined period as at an end of a first duration from a current time; and
based on determining that the maintenance period cost represents the second value, scheduling the start time of the predetermined period as an end of a second duration from the current time, the second duration being longer than the first duration.
However, as best understood, in light of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), Barajas teaches a similar system and method to Weber as it also teaches recommending to combine services when a vehicle is scheduled for another service. As a non-limiting example, Barajas teaches that if a vehicle is scheduled for brake pad replacement, then it would also recommend rotating and/or balancing tires since, historically, a user has rotated/balanced tires when the brake pads were replaced. Yet Barajas takes this a step further by taking into account other considerations to determine when a recommended service should be performed. Barajas teaches that the system includes a recommender that will analyze importance, consequences, usage, cost, scheduled service, and so forth to determine whether a recommended service should be recommended to be performed with a scheduled service visit or not, i.e. before, at, or after a service visit. Both Weber and Barajas disclose and teach that services can be combined with one another and that services can be combined when the vehicle is scheduled to be serviced for a service that is different from the recommended service.
Weber discloses that brakes are replaced at 25,000 miles, tires are replaced at 20,000 miles, tire rotation can be recommended to be performed with tire replacement, and that the system can take into account the severity or criticality of a recommendation when conveying the information to a user so that the user can perform a cost-benefit analysis (¶ 36, 51, 56, 57, 59). When the system has determined what services to recommend to a user, the decision to perform or authorize the service is up to the user (owner, driver, or the like. This, in turn, provides the user with the opportunity to choose to visit the servicing facility multiple times to perform a respective service, choose to accept and add a recommended service with their scheduled service, or be provided information that their vehicle is being heavily used or used in a harsh environment and, consequently, accept to perform a recommended service at a time that is earlier than what is typically scheduled for that recommended service (¶ 53), thereby adding (or not) the recommended service to a scheduled service visit, which can also result in a user taking advantage of a particular offer, i.e. enticing a user to take advantage and accept a recommended service that would be cheaper if added to their already scheduled service visit. That is to say, Weber discloses that the recommended service can be performed at the scheduled visit because the maintenance cost is equal to or more than a threshold, e.g., discount offer is equal or more than the cost to (for example) rotate tires if it is bundled with tire replacement; or determine to perform the maintenance at the recommended period because the maintenance cost is less than a threshold, e.g., there is no discount.
Additionally, Weber also discloses that the importance or criticality of a service is considered and compared to a threshold to determine whether a recommended service should be performed at a recommended service time or the scheduled service time, e.g., heavy usage may prompt a visit prior to the scheduled visit, typical usage would prompt adding the recommended service to a scheduled service (if tires are being replaced then the user may be interested in rotating the tires to ensure even/proper wear of older tires), or light usage may prompt a visit after the scheduled visit.
Weber also discloses that the system reviews manufacturer recommendations and since the system is already identifying the combining of services with a scheduled visit, then the system can find itself identifying and recommending a manufacturer recommended service with a scheduled visit, e.g., if oil is recommended to be changed approximately every 5,000 miles or 6 months and the tires are being replaced at 20,000 miles then an offer to perform a synthetic oil change at 50% off may be determined and conveyed to the user.
In summary, Weber discloses that the system is capable of identifying and recommending a recommended service to add to an already scheduled service by identifying and comparing recommended services that can be performed within a time frame relative to an already scheduled service visit.
However, Barajas takes this process a step further by explicitly teaching that it is well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle service monitoring and scheduling to provide recommended services to a user and have them added to already scheduled services as this ensures that the user will not forget about performing a service (¶ 4), “assure reliability during a highly important event” (¶ 22), determine whether a recommended services aligns with a user’s schedule (¶ 20, 21), determine if a particular recommended service will be performed within a particular time period or driving distance (¶ 38), determine whether the cost and/or importance is within a threshold to then determine whether to recommend a particular service (¶ 40), and/or determine, based on historical information, whether to recommend a service with a scheduled service.
However, Barajas further expands upon the disclosure of Weber by more explicitly teaching that it is well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to analyze the recommended service to determine an associated cost and/or importance as one of many factors for why the recommended service is being recommended to the user that could be added to an already scheduled visit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to take into consideration cost, importance, manufacturer recommended guidelines, and so forth as part of when a recommended service should be performed relative to when the scheduled visit is to be performed as this would ensure that the user can afford both the scheduled service and recommended service, ensure whether the vehicle will remain reliable during important events, ensure that the vehicle is being properly maintained, and/or ensure that important maintenance will not be forgotten by the user.
In the end, both Weber and Barajas disclose and teach that it is well-known, obvious, and advantageous to provide a system that has been configured to identify a scheduled service visit, identifying additional recommended services that can be added to the scheduled visit, and notifying a user to add a recommended service to the scheduled visit as a means of assuring that certain services are performed within a recommended time frame and assure that the vehicle will remain reliable. One of ordinary skill in the art looking upon the teachings of Barajas to take into consideration cost, importance, and recommended service time relative to a scheduled visit when conveying a recommended service to a user to determine whether the recommended service will be performed before, at, or after a scheduled visit because this ensures whether the customer can afford the cost of performing the scheduled service and recommended service at the same time, whether there is a historical basis for performing the recommended service with a scheduled service, and whether there are consequences and/or scheduling considerations that can come up if a recommended service is performed before, at, or after a scheduled visit.
(For support see: ¶ 2, 3, 4, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 45)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the maintenance service bundling system and method of Weber with the ability to take into consideration cost, importance, criticality, and/or scheduling/calendaring conflicts as factors that can determine whether a recommended service should be scheduled before, at, or after a scheduled visit, as taught by Barajas, as this can reduce the number of visits that a user would need to make to service their vehicle, determine whether the user can afford to add a recommended service to a scheduled service, assure the reliability of the vehicle, prevent importance services from being forgotten by the user, assure that the vehicle if following manufacturer recommended guidelines, and/or determine whether there would be a scheduling/calendaring conflict with the customer.
In regards to claims 7, 16, the combination of Weber and Barajas, as best understood, in light of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), discloses the information processing device according to claim 6 (the information processing method according to claim 15), wherein the processor is further
In regards to:
schedule, depending on the importance degree and while a period from an end of the scheduled first period to a start of a next scheduled visit period remains fixed, a start time of the predetermined period by:
determining whether the importance degree represents a first value;
determining whether the importance degree represents a second value higher than the first value;
determining that the importance degree represents one of the first value and the second value higher than the first value
(Fig. 4; ¶ 57, 59, 60 wherein the item information includes maintenance cost for the maintenance corresponding to the item, e.g., from free to not free; ¶ 57 wherein a free tire rotation will be provided if performed with the scheduled visit of a tire replacement and wherein the tire rotation will not be performed for free if performed before or after the scheduled tire replacement; ¶ 36, 43, 57 wherein prolonging a particular recommended service can result in consequences as a particular recommended service is vital to the proper operation of the vehicle, e.g., prolonging an oil change can result in damaging the engine, which, in turn, can result in the engine no longer being able to operate (seizing) and/or larger cost to service the vehicle in order to address additional damage due to not changing the oil, wherein changing the oil (for a combustion based vehicle) is an important type of service that should be performed based on usage/time);
[…]; and
[…].
Weber discloses a system and method that provides a user with the opportunity to include or add additional services to a scheduled vehicle visit and determining what services to perform based on a variety of factors. Although Weber discloses (Fig. 4; ¶ 36, 59) that the system provides information regarding the cost to perform a service, an explanation of why a service should be performed, information to allow a user to perform a cost-benefit analysis and whether services can be combined with a scheduled service, Weber fails to explicitly disclose whether it would have been obvious for the system to consider cost or importance and how they compare against a threshold to determine when to schedule a service.
To be more specific, Weber fails to explicitly disclose:
based on determining that the importance degree represents the first value, scheduling the start time of the predetermined period as at an end of a first duration from a current time; and
based on determining that the importance degree represents the second value, scheduling the start time of the predetermined period as at an end of a second duration from the current time, the second duration being longer than the first duration.
However, as best understood, in light of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), Barajas teaches a similar system and method to Weber as it also teaches recommending to combine services when a vehicle is scheduled for another service. As a non-limiting example, Barajas teaches that if a vehicle is scheduled for brake pad replacement, then it would also recommend rotating and/or balancing tires since, historically, a user has rotated/balanced tires when the brake pads were replaced. Yet Barajas takes this a step further by taking into account other considerations to determine when a recommended service should be performed. Barajas teaches that the system includes a recommender that will analyze importance, consequences, usage, cost, scheduled service, and so forth to determine whether a recommended service should be recommended to be performed with a scheduled service visit or not, i.e. before, at, or after a service visit. Both Weber and Barajas disclose and teach that services can be combined with one another and that services can be combined when the vehicle is scheduled to be serviced for a service that is different from the recommended service.
Weber discloses that brakes are replaced at 25,000 miles, tires are replaced at 20,000 miles, tire rotation can be recommended to be performed with tire replacement, and that the system can take into account the severity or criticality of a recommendation when conveying the information to a user so that the user can perform a cost-benefit analysis (¶ 36, 51, 56, 57, 59). When the system has determined what services to recommend to a user, the decision to perform or authorize the service is up to the user (owner, driver, or the like. This, in turn, provides the user with the opportunity to choose to visit the servicing facility multiple times to perform a respective service, choose to accept and add a recommended service with their scheduled service, or be provided information that their vehicle is being heavily used or used in a harsh environment and, consequently, accept to perform a recommended service at a time that is earlier than what is typically scheduled for that recommended service (¶ 53), thereby adding (or not) the recommended service to a scheduled service visit, which can also result in a user taking advantage of a particular offer, i.e. enticing a user to take advantage and accept a recommended service that would be cheaper if added to their already scheduled service visit. That is to say, Weber discloses that the recommended service can be performed at the scheduled visit because the maintenance cost is equal to or more than a threshold, e.g., discount offer is equal or more than the cost to (for example) rotate tires if it is bundled with tire replacement; or determine to perform the maintenance at the recommended period because the maintenance cost is less than a threshold, e.g., there is no discount.
Additionally, Weber also discloses that the importance or criticality of a service is considered and compared to a threshold to determine whether a recommended service should be performed at a recommended service time or the scheduled service time, e.g., heavy usage may prompt a visit prior to the scheduled visit, typical usage would prompt adding the recommended service to a scheduled service (if tires are being replaced then the user may be interested in rotating the tires to ensure even/proper wear of older tires), or light usage may prompt a visit after the scheduled visit.
Weber also discloses that the system reviews manufacturer recommendations and since the system is already identifying the combining of services with a scheduled visit, then the system can find itself identifying and recommending a manufacturer recommended service with a scheduled visit, e.g., if oil is recommended to be changed approximately every 5,000 miles or 6 months and the tires are being replaced at 20,000 miles then an offer to perform a synthetic oil change at 50% off may be determined and conveyed to the user.
In summary, Weber discloses that the system is capable of identifying and recommending a recommended service to add to an already scheduled service by identifying and comparing recommended services that can be performed within a time frame relative to an already scheduled service visit.
However, Barajas takes this process a step further by explicitly teaching that it is well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle service monitoring and scheduling to provide recommended services to a user and have them added to already scheduled services as this ensures that the user will not forget about performing a service (¶ 4), “assure reliability during a highly important event” (¶ 22), determine whether a recommended services aligns with a user’s schedule (¶ 20, 21), determine if a particular recommended service will be performed within a particular time period or driving distance (¶ 38), determine whether the cost and/or importance is within a threshold to then determine whether to recommend a particular service (¶ 40), and/or determine, based on historical information, whether to recommend a service with a scheduled service.
However, Barajas further expands upon the disclosure of Weber by more explicitly teaching that it is well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to analyze the recommended service to determine an associated cost and/or importance as one of many factors for why the recommended service is being recommended to the user that could be added to an already scheduled visit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to take into consideration cost, importance, manufacturer recommended guidelines, and so forth as part of when a recommended service should be performed relative to when the scheduled visit is to be performed as this would ensure that the user can afford both the scheduled service and recommended service, ensure whether the vehicle will remain reliable during important events, ensure that the vehicle is being properly maintained, and/or ensure that important maintenance will not be forgotten by the user.
In the end, both Weber and Barajas disclose and teach that it is well-known, obvious, and advantageous to provide a system that has been configured to identify a scheduled service visit, identifying additional recommended services that can be added to the scheduled visit, and notifying a user to add a recommended service to the scheduled visit as a means of assuring that certain services are performed within a recommended time frame and assure that the vehicle will remain reliable. One of ordinary skill in the art looking upon the teachings of Barajas to take into consideration cost, importance, and recommended service time relative to a scheduled visit when conveying a recommended service to a user to determine whether the recommended service will be performed before, at, or after a scheduled visit because this ensures whether the customer can afford the cost of performing the scheduled service and recommended service at the same time, whether there is a historical basis for performing the recommended service with a scheduled service, and whether there are consequences and/or scheduling considerations that can come up if a recommended service is performed before, at, or after a scheduled visit.
(For support see: ¶ 2, 3, 4, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 45)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the maintenance service bundling system and method of Weber with the ability to take into consideration cost, importance, criticality, and/or scheduling/calendaring conflicts as factors that can determine whether a recommended service should be scheduled before, at, or after a scheduled visit, as taught by Barajas, as this can reduce the number of visits that a user would need to make to service their vehicle, determine whether the user can afford to add a recommended service to a scheduled service, assure the reliability of the vehicle, prevent importance services from being forgotten by the user, assure that the vehicle if following manufacturer recommended guidelines, and/or determine whether there would be a scheduling/calendaring conflict with the customer.
In regards to claims 8, 17, Weber discloses a system and method that provides a user with the opportunity to include or add additional services to a scheduled vehicle visit and determining what services to perform based on a variety of factors. Although Weber is open-ended with respect to the types of services that can be performed on a vehicle, Weber fails to explicitly disclose whether a legal inspection is a known type of vehicle service.
To be more specific, Weber fails to explicitly disclose:
the information processing device according to claim 1 (the information processing method according to claim 10), wherein the scheduled visit period is a period in which the vehicle is defined to undergo a legal inspection.
However, Barajas teaches a similar system and method to Weber as it also teaches recommending to combine services when a vehicle is scheduled for another service, but further expands upon the plurality of exemplary service types disclosed by Weber. Specifically, while Weber discloses that service milestones are known in the art, e.g., oil changes, tire rotations, tire replacement, brake pad replacement, and etc., Weber fails to explicitly disclose whether legal inspections are a known service milestone type. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Barajas to determine whether legal inspections are known service milestone types and, consequently, would have found that not only are oil changes, tire rotations, brake pad replacements, and etc. are known service milestones, but that legal inspections, i.e. emissions test, is also a well-known and established service milestone type. As a non-limiting example, one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle maintenance and scheduling in The United States of America would have known that legal inspections, such as, but not limited to, emission testing is a well-known and established service milestone that must be performed on a regular basis. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include legal inspections to the list of other service milestones disclosed by Weber and taught by Barajas as this would result in a more robust maintenance tracking and scheduling system that would assure that a vehicle is being properly maintained and looked after and simply adding this additional type of service milestone to the list of milestones of Weber would have been well within the ability of one having ordinary skill in the art of vehicle servicing and achieve the same predictable result of tracking a service type for a vehicle and scheduling a time to service the particular service type, as well as ensure the reliability of the vehicle, prevent avoidable consequences, and ensure that the user does not forget to perform a particular type of service.
(For support see: ¶ 1, 4, 37)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in the vehicle maintenance and scheduling system and method of Weber with the ability to include additional service types, such as, but not limited to, legal inspections, as taught by Barajas, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include legal inspections to the list of other service milestones disclosed by Weber and taught by Barajas as this would result in a more robust maintenance tracking and scheduling system that would assure that a vehicle is being properly maintained and looked after
______________________________________________________________________
Claims 9, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (US PGPub 2018/0357612 A1) in view of in view of Barajas Gonzalez et al. (US PGPub 2018/0075668 A1), hereinafter referred to as Barajas, in further view of Select Car Leasing (Maintenance cover for your lease car).
In regards to claims 9, 18, Weber discloses a system and method that provides a user with the opportunity to include or add additional services to a scheduled vehicle visit and determining what services to perform based on a variety of factors. Although the purpose of the vehicle, i.e. leasing the vehicle, and the environment of use, i.e. leasing company, are directed towards description subject matter and do not further limit or alter how the invention is performed, the Examiner has provided an additional reference (discussed below). In other words, although Weber is not limited to any particular type of vehicle, how it is managed, or what it will be used for, i.e. a leasing company leasing a vehicle and the relationship between the leasing company and a facility, Weber fails to explicitly disclose that the vehicle is a vehicle that is leased from a leasing company that is associated with a facility and that such vehicles are known to require maintenance and maintenance scheduling.
To be more specific, Weber fails to explicitly disclose:
the information processing device according to claim 1 (the information processing method according to claim 10), wherein:
the vehicle is a vehicle leased from a leasing company to the user; and
the scheduled visit period is a period in which the user is scheduled to bring the vehicle to a facility associated with the leasing company.
However, Select Car Leasing, which also teaches that vehicles require maintenance and maintenance scheduling, further teaches that leased vehicles are a well-known and established type of vehicle that requires maintenance and that such vehicles are leased by a leasing company that is associated with a facility, presumably to perform maintenance on the leased vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to also include leased vehicles as a type of vehicle that requires servicing and to lease the vehicle from a leasing company that is associated with a facility as it provides the user with the opportunity to purchase a maintenance package that offers peace of mind, cost savings, and ensure that manufacturer’s warranty remain valid, thereby helping to lower the overall vehicle running cases because it ensures that the vehicle is running at its most efficient due to regular servicing. Select Car Leasing further teaches that it is also obvious and beneficial for the leasing company to be associated with a facility as this provides the user with information of approved, accredited garages and qualified technicians, thereby providing additional peace of mind for the user.
(For support see: Pages 1 – 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the vehicle maintenance and scheduling system and method of Weber with the ability to include other vehicle types, e.g., leased vehicles, and entities managing these vehicle types, e.g., leasing company that is associated with a facility, as taught by Select Car Leasing, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that leased vehicles are a known vehicle type that require maintenance and a leasing company is a well-known entity that manages leased vehicles and offer maintenance packages to users in order to offer them peace of mind, cost savings, and ensure that manufacturer’s warranty remain valid, thereby helping to lower the overall vehicle running cases because it ensures that the vehicle is running at its most efficient due to regular servicing, while also being associated with a facility as this provides the user with information of approved, accredited garages and qualified technicians, thereby providing additional peace of mind for the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) has been withdrawn due to amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 112(b)
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn due to amendments.
New rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been provided due to amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 112(a)
The rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been withdrawn due to amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 101
The rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained.
The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention does not improve any technology, resolve an issue that arose in technology, or deeply rooted in technology. The claimed invention is directed towards scheduling and, more specifically, vehicle maintenance scheduling by determining when to schedule services, which is based on collecting and comparing information and, based on a rule(s), identify options, i.e. scheduling options. ¶ 27 of the specification discloses that the claimed invention is directed towards determining whether to combine multiple maintenance visits into less visits, e.g., rotating the tires (recommended service) for a visit scheduled for replacing tires (scheduled service), which is further based on the collection and comparison of information. The claimed invention corresponds to “Mental Processes” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, e.g., having a user acquire scheduled vehicle visits, determine whether an item is present corresponding to a recommended service for a recommended period, acquire item information when the item is present, and determine whether maintenance corresponding to the item should be performed in the scheduled visit or recommended period. Additionally, the Examiner asserts that, although not claimed, performing routine or non-routine vehicle maintenance is not an improvement to the vehicle, but simply returning the vehicle to its original functionality.
Rejection under 35 USC 102/103
The Examiner asserts that the applicant’s arguments are directed towards newly amended limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the newly submitted amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the applicant’s arguments.
Pertinent Arguments
The Examiner asserts that the system and method of Weber analyzes various maintenance related information for a vehicle to determine if additional services/products should be recommended to a user based on vehicle usage, e.g., location, time, miles, driver behavior, and the like. As a result, the system is not only able to allow a user to schedule maintenance, but to recommend additional maintenance services/products on top of their regular maintenance. As an additional example, the user has the opportunity to schedule servicing to purchase new tires because 20K miles have been driven. In response, the system can recommend for the user to purchase specific types of tires and rotation service. Additionally, the user has scheduled an oil change and the system can recommend upgrading to premium synthetic and reasons can be provided and the user can perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not to take accept the recommendation that was provided to the user.
In light of the amendments, the Examiner has also provided an alternate interpretation and corresponding rejection in view of Barajas to more explicitly teach, inter alia, combining multiple services into a scheduled service visit even though the scheduled service visit did not include those other services. Both Weber and Barajas disclose and teach that it is well-known, obvious, and advantageous to provide a system that has been configured to identify a scheduled service visit, identifying additional recommended services that can be added to the scheduled visit, and notifying a user to add a recommended service to the scheduled visit as a means of assuring that certain services are performed within a recommended time frame and assure that the vehicle will remain reliable. One of ordinary skill in the art looking upon the teachings of Barajas to take into consideration cost, importance, and recommended service time relative to a scheduled visit when conveying a recommended service to a user to determine whether the recommended service will be performed before, at, or after a scheduled visit because this ensures whether the customer can afford the cost of performing the scheduled service and recommended service at the same time, whether there is a historical basis for performing the recommended service with a scheduled service, and whether there are consequences and/or scheduling considerations that can come up if a recommended service is performed before, at, or after a scheduled visit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the maintenance service bundling system and method of Weber with the ability to take into consideration cost, importance, criticality, and/or scheduling/calendaring conflicts as factors that can determine whether a recommended service should be scheduled before, at, or after a scheduled visit, as taught by Barajas, as this can reduce the number of visits that a user would need to make to service their vehicle, determine whether the user can afford to add a recommended service to a scheduled service, assure the reliability of the vehicle, prevent importance services from being forgotten by the user, assure that the vehicle if following manufacturer recommended guidelines, and/or determine whether there would be a scheduling/calendaring conflict with the customer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Waagen et al. (US Patent 12,374,166 B2); Harris, III et al. (US PGPub 2019/0005464 A1) – which discusses utilizing machine learning to assist with vehicle maintenance scheduling
Roddy et al. (US PGPub 2011/0208567 A9) – which discusses scheduling a fleet of vehicles
Esser et al. (WO 2009/152380 A1) – which discusses a system and method for recommending vehicle maintenance services to a user
Lalonde et al. (US PGPub 2018/0144384 A1) – which discusses reminding a user to perform vehicle maintenance in order to prevent invalidating a warranty
Rozint (CA 3092411) – which discusses recommending additional services while servicing a vehicle
Rodriguez (US PGPub 2018/0018731 A1) – which discusses recommending additional services while servicing a vehicle, which the user can accept or reject
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARDO ARAQUE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4:30.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
GERARDO ARAQUE JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/GERARDO ARAQUE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 11/14/2025
Prosecution Insights