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 ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 11/10/25.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Therefore, Claims 1-5 are now pending and have been addressed below.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
In the instant case, claims 1-5 are directed to a system. Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 1 Identifying a Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A, prong 1, Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recite methods for determining payment amount for resigning a contractual plan that includes output information on a payment amount in a case of re-signing up for at least one of contractual plans for a lease contract for an object, which are a first plan involving an initial cost at the time of signing of the lease contract and not involving an early termination charge during a lease contract period and a second plan not involving the initial cost at the time of signing of the lease contract and involving the early termination charge during the lease contract period, after expiration of the lease contract period; if the user resigns up for the first plan or the second plan setting the payment amount for each of the contractual plans during a recontract period such that a total of the payment amount during the recontract period is larger in a case where the contractual plan is the second plan than in a case where the contractual plan is the first plan based on a predetermined criteria for calculating a payment amount; and transmitting information on the payment amount during the recontract period to the user in response to the first information.
These limitations as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (including commercial interactions such as business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) including interaction between person and computer), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements (such as an information apparatus, processor, a user terminal), the claims are directed to providing information on a contract of a new car or used car leasing service online in response to a request from a user. The concept of determining payment amount for contractual plan is a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving data, analyzing it, and providing payment data. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – an information apparatus, processor, a user terminal. The additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In addition, limitations reciting data gathering such as “receiving first information giving an instruction to output information on a payment amount “ is insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gather data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application for that additional reason. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371-72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); GIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Also, the limitation reciting “transmitting information on the payment amount …” is merely a post-solution step of transmitting data output—a nominal addition to the claim that does not meaningfully limit the claim. Therefore, receiving/transmitting steps are an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims describe how to generally “apply” to; determining payment amount for resigning a contractual plan. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims are not significantly more because they are part of the identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims are not patent eligible. With respect to an information apparatus, processor, user terminal, these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See Applicants specification, Paragraph [0016] details “ The user terminal is typically a smartphone, a tablet terminal, a wearable terminal, a personal computer, or the like.” These are basic computer elements applied merely to carry out data processing such as, discussed above, receiving, analyzing, transmitting and displaying data. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “receiving steps” and “transmitting steps” amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Furthermore, the use of such generic computers to receive or transmit data over a network has been identified as a well understood, routine and conventional activity by the courts. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); Also see MPEP 2106.05(d) discussing elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional activities in particular fields. Lastly, the additional elements provides only a result-oriented solution which lacks details as to how the computer performs the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, these steps/components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the claimed invention does not demonstrate a technologically rooted solution to a computer-centric problem or recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the function of any computer itself, applying the exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment such as computing. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Taking the additional claimed elements individually and in combination, the computer components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-5, add additional limitations, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as Independent claims.
Claims 2-4 recites object is an automobile; total payment aunt is larger for second plan than first plan; setting the payment amount for each contractual plan; setting to identical amounts, a monthly mount of payment are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations further narrow the abstract idea. The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites receiving and transmitting steps. In addition, the calculating step is abstract idea of mathematical calculations. The limitations reciting data gathering such as “receiving second information giving an instruction to output information on a payment amount “ is insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gather data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application for that additional reason. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371-72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); GIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Also, the limitation reciting “transmitting information on the payment amount …” is merely a post-solution step of transmitting data output—a nominal addition to the claim that does not meaningfully limit the claim. Therefore, these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not integrate into a practical application. As such, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application, but rather, the recitation of any additional element amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The dependent claims also 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 elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. These limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05d. Thus, the claims do not add significantly more to an abstract idea. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See (Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner (US 2021/0312481 A1) in view of Murase (US 20030046199 A1), further in view of Cooksey (US 2020/0160374 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Warner discloses the information processing apparatus for providing information on a contract of a new car or used car leasing service online in response to a request from a user terminal ([0004] During the term of the financial agreement (the “current agreement”) covering the first product (“the current product”), a person may desire to replace or supplement the current product with a second product (a “replacement product”). In such an instance, to obtain the replacement product, a person may be willing to return the current product and enter a second financial agreement (a “replacement agreement”) that satisfies the first financial agreement. For example, a person having two years of payments remaining on his automobile lease may be willing to return the automobile to a dealership and enter a new lease for a latest model. The replacement agreement may be any suitable type of financial agreement (e.g., a purchase contract, a lease, deferred payment, or the like), including the same type as the current agreement or a different type, [0115] A client may have an entry associated with the client's current automobile transaction, as illustrated by hyperlinks 304 that display the client name and one or more associated automobile identifiers (e.g., make, model, year, or the like)., [0116] a client may have an existing lease of an automobile or may have purchased an automobile and is currently making payments. Selecting one or more of checkboxes 308 may be used to limit the displayed contact management entries to a category of deal sheets associated with a client, such as a sale, an alert, an expired alert, a lease ending, or the like.), comprising a controller comprising at least one processor (Abstract lines 1-3 A computing system can generate data for rendering an interactive graphical user interface, allow a user to input transaction parameters [0002]identifying opportunities for customers or prospective customers to obtain favorable contract or warranty terms. configured to perform:
Warner discloses receiving, from a user terminal, first information giving an instruction to output information on a payment amount in a case of re-signing up for at least one of contractual plans for a lease contract for an object ([0004] During the term of the financial agreement (the “current agreement”) covering the first product (“the current product”), a person may desire to replace or supplement the current product with a second product (a “replacement product”). In such an instance, to obtain the replacement product, a person may be willing to return the current product and enter a second financial agreement (a “replacement agreement”) that satisfies the first financial agreement. For example, a person having two years of payments remaining on his automobile lease may be willing to return the automobile to a dealership and enter a new lease for a latest model. The replacement agreement (re-signing) may be any suitable type of financial agreement (e.g., a purchase contract, a lease, deferred payment, or the like), including the same type as the current agreement or a different type. [0018] a financial terms alert generation system comprises an information retrieval module, a financial terms comparison module, and an alert transmission module. The information retrieval module is configured to retrieve financing information, customer information, product information, and product use information from one or more sources accessible on a network. The alert transmission module is configured to transmit, store, or present an alert to a dealer or customer in cases in which the financial terms comparison module determines that a customer is able to enter into a new financial arrangement on terms favorable to the customer. Fig 1A #102 and [0079] collections of information related to customers and existing, replacement, or new financing agreements, lease agreements, warranty agreements, service agreements, purchase agreements, or trade agreements. In various embodiments, a deal sheet (payment amount) can present customer information along with a comparison of an existing agreement for a current product of the customer with one or more new agreements for a supplemental or replacement product that can be offered to the customer. Fig 1A shows deal sheet generated for lease),
Warner discloses which are a first plan involving an initial cost at the time of signing of the lease contract and not involving an early termination charge during a lease contract period ([0081] The deal sheet may advantageously include a recent measure of the current product's usage (such as when the deal sheet was prepared) or an estimate of the current product's usage now (based, e.g., on earlier measures) or in the future (based, e.g., on one or more recent or earlier measures). This usage information is advantageously included with information about usage based fees associated the current agreement, such that a customer can compare the cost of their use of the product under the current agreement to the cost of a replacement agreement. A replacement agreement's payment (initial cost) is advantageously shown along with the difference between the client's current financial agreement's payment and the replacement agreement's payment., [0150] the user might enter terms such as a down payment, a monthly fee, mileage limits, overage rates, Fig 1A shows no early termination charge, [0164] Using screen 1702, the user may view a display of costs associated with some or all of a set of car models. In one embodiment, the set comprises a set of available car models offered by a particular car dealership ) and a second plan not involving the initial cost at the time of signing of the lease contract and involving the early termination charge ([0081] Any suitable number of replacement agreements may be displayed, including but not limited to one, two, three, four, five, six, or more replacement agreements. Any suitable number of lenders for replacement agreements may be displayed, including but not limited to one, two, or more lenders., [0082] If use exceeds that at the time the lease is over and the product is returned, a penalty fee is usually required. For example, the customer may be obliged to pay 10 or 25 cents a mile, perhaps depending on the amount of excess use. In some circumstances approximately 10% of lease customers incur these penalties, with 5,000 dollars being a typical penalty fee, [0092] a dealer or other agent hoping to provide a replacement product may “eat” or assume some or all of any usage based that is due if the current agreement is cancelled (this may or may not be related to a the dealer's assumption of any early-termination fees). [0094] FIG. 1I illustrates one embodiment of a deferred or balloon payment formula; however, any suitable deferred or balloon payment formula may be used. The term “deferred” is a broad term and is to be given its ordinary and customary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art (i.e., it is not to be limited to a special or customized meaning) and includes, without limitation, aspects of some embodiments disclosed herein, balloon payments, payments-upon-cancellation (early termination charge) or payments-upon-termination, or any type of payment obligation due at a time in the future. Fig 1I shows deferred agreement calculations);
Warner discloses setting the payment amount for each of the contractual plans during a recontract period such that a total of the payment amount during the recontract period is larger in a case where the contractual plan is the second plan than in a case where the contractual plan is the first plan based on a predetermined criteria for calculating a payment amount ([0018] The financial terms comparison module is configured to compare a customer's current financial arrangement to a potential new financial arrangement to determine whether the customer is able to enter into a new financial arrangement on terms favorable to the customer. In one embodiment, the financial terms comparison module performed at least one calculation based on the retrieved information in order to make this comparison [0094] replacement agreements may be any suitable type of agreement, including but not limited to a lease agreement (first plan), a deferred or balloon agreement (second plan), a purchase agreement, or the like. Fig 35 shows payment calculations for different types of contract such as lease (first plan), ballon (second plan larger payment) and financial terms [0096] FIG. 35, deal sheet may have one, two, three, or more types of agreements (e.g., lease, balloon, retail purchase, or the like). Further, different types of agreements may have the same or different sets of parameters displayed in the deal sheet. [0102] The payments area on the right hand side of FIG. 70 can display information about the options for leasing or financing a replacement product. This information can include a comparison of the customer's current financing agreement and the terms of various available replacement agreements. For example, the right side of the payments table in FIG. 70 shows the financial criteria corresponding to different lease terms ranging from 24-72 months. For each lease term, the table indicates the interest rate, the monthly payment, and the difference between the monthly payment under that lease and the customer's current monthly payment. [0115] the system generates a deal sheet and an associated contact management entry when the system receives an update of information used to calculate replacement agreements that are advantageously displayed in deal sheets.[0202] Upon retrieving such information from sources available on the network 3945, the information retrieval module 3930 makes the information available to the financial terms alert generation system 3905, such that the system 3905 can use the information in order to perform the calculations necessary to determine whether a customer can advantageously enter a new lease or purchase transaction. [0218] additional fees (e.g., license fee, bank acquisition fee, or the like) may be required in addition to the replacement product payments. In some embodiments, the payments calculated for a replacement product includes fees (e.g., delivery charge, fuel-economy tax) related to the replacement agreement. ) (second plan payment more than first plan due to additional fees/cost such as balloon payments, payments-upon-cancellation or payments-upon-termination, or any type of payment obligation due at a time in the future as shown in [0074] and Fig 70, [0091] FIG. 1G, the section headings 130 indicate the names of the lenders associated with the replacement agreements shown under the section headings 130. Any suitable information about the replacement agreements may be displayed, including but not limited to a contract term (e.g., 36 months, 48 months, 60 months, or the like), the type of agreement (e.g., lease, purchase, deferred payment), a residual or deferred payment amount, a capitalized cost or amount financed, a money factor or interest rate charged on the replacement agreement, a periodic payment associated with the replacement agreement, and difference (e.g., text 134) between the client's periodic payment under the current agreement (e.g., text 116 in FIG. 1E) and the payment under the replacement agreement (e.g., text 132)).; and
Warner discloses transmitting information on the payment amount during the recontract period to the user terminal in response to the first information ([0222] the process 3600 generates an alert whenever the difference between the amount that a customer will pay for a new but comparable financial arrangement as compared to the customer's current financial arrangement is below a threshold value. For example, in one embodiment, the process 3600 generates an alert whenever the difference in payment amount is less 10%, such that, for example, an alert is generated when a new payment amount would be $540 and a current payment amount is $500., Fig 37 # 3830, 3850, 3860 transit and present deals to customer).
Warner does not specifically teach a second plan involving the early termination charge during the lease contract period, after expiration of the lease contract period
Murase teaches a second plan involving the early termination charge during the lease contract period, after expiration of the lease contract period ([0033] The lease payment may include an adjustment fee (such as early termination fee), [0035] The adjustment fee is the amount the user owes if the vehicle is returned at the end of the preset shorter period. For example, the adjustment fee is set equal to the difference obtained by subtracting the lease amount already paid, from the cost to be recouped during the preset shorter period., [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included early termination charge during the lease contract period, after expiration of the lease contract period, as disclosed by Murase in the system disclosed by Warner, for the motivation of providing a method of facilitating change to a new vehicle by the user by reducing the amount of early termination fee. ([0037] Murase)
Warner/Murase do not specifically teach if a user re-signs up for the first plan or the second plan setting the payment amount for each of the contractual plans based on a predetermined criteria for calculating a payment amount
Cooksey teaches if a user re-signs up for the first plan or the second plan setting the payment amount for each of the contractual plans based on a predetermined criteria for calculating a payment amount ([0057] Upon receiving the text message, via the user device 220, the first potential leasee may click the link to view the customized offer and be directed to a landing page setting forth the specific offer attributes, such as the monthly payment being offered, an incentive available for accepting the customized offer (e.g., renewing the lease), and an “Accept” or “Renew” button, allowing the first potential leasee to accept the customized offer and review the lease, [0037] in the determination of the customized offer, the offer-determination computer 260 may filter the available attributes associated with the first potential customer those attributes. In the determination of the customized offer, the offer-determination computer 260 may additionally or alternatively determine one or more additional attributes, for example, which may be derived or inferred from the various available attributes. For example, such additional attributes may include mathematical relationships which may be calculated from the available attributes (e.g., an income-to-payment ratio) or inferred from the available attributes (e.g., a customer preference index, based upon prior purchasing history). [0058] the offer-determination computer 260 may monitor the response of the first potential leasee to receipt of the customized offer, for example, by determining whether or not the first potential leasee has renewed their apartment lease (e.g., clicked the acceptance link). If the first potential leasee fails to renew the lease, the offer-determination computer 260 send one or more follow-up messages, as previously discussed. In some embodiments, upon a determination that the first potential leasee has accepted the customized offer, the offer-determination computer 260 may, responsive to the acceptance, generate and send to the first potential customer one or more additional forms, documents, or the like for presentation to the first potential customer, for example, a lease agreement or renewal agreement. [0065] Upon receiving the text message, via the user device 220, the first potential leasee may click the link to view the customized offer and be directed to a landing page setting forth the specific offer attributes, such as the monthly payment being offered, an incentive available for accepting the customized offer (e.g., renewing the lease), and an “Accept” or “Renew” button [0038] the offer-determination computer 260 may determine the particular product or service that will be offered; the price of the products or services that will be offered; financing terms (e.g., interest rate and/or term) associated with the products or services that will be offered; any discounts applicable to the products or services that will be offered; any incentive conditioned on acceptance of the customized offer that will be offered)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included if a user re-signs up for the first plan or the second plan setting the payment amount for each of the contractual plans based on a predetermined criteria for calculating a payment amount, as disclosed by Cooksey in the system disclosed by Warner/Murase, for the motivation of providing a the customized offer is for an automobile lease [0007] where a potential customer must renew a term of service or agreement such as auto lease ([0051] Cooksey)
Regarding Claim 2, Warner as modified by Murase/Cooksey teaches the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1,
Warner teaches wherein the object is an automobile ([0079] a replacement product can be a vehicle, or a lease or financing agreement related to a vehicle, that can be offered to a customer., Fig 1B shows existing contract for vehicle), and
Warner teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute making a total of the payment amount during the recontract period in a case of signing the lease contract for a new car with the second plan (Fig 1F #126 shows payment information for new vehicle (amount financed) and [0089] FIG. 1F, the text 120 indicates that the deal sheet is provided by a particular car dealership. Text 122 indicates the client for whom the deal sheet was created. Section 124 includes information, including contact information, for the client, such as the client's name, address, and telephone numbers. The information about the client may be obtained from any suitable resource, [0090] the replacement product, including but not limited to a class identifier identifying a group of models, a series identifier identifying a particular model, a model year, a make, a model, a selling price associated with the product (e.g., an average selling price), the trade equity value illustrated in section 112 (FIG. 1E), a subsidy amount (if any) the seller of the replacement product would be willing to accept below the selling price associated with the product, the total selling price (or capitalized cost) on the replacement product including any equity and including sales tax (if any), sales tax (if any), and the total amount financed including trade equity and sales tax.(total of payment amount), Fig 35 shows payment information for new and old lease) and
Warner teaches re-signing up for the second plan after expiration of the lease contract period larger than a total of the payment amount during the recontract period in a case of signing the lease contract for the new car with the first plan ([0094] replacement agreements may be any suitable type of agreement, including but not limited to a lease agreement (first plan), a deferred or balloon agreement (second plan), a purchase agreement, or the like. [0102] The payments area on the right hand side of FIG. 70 can display information about the options for leasing or financing a replacement product. This information can include a comparison of the customer's current financing agreement and the terms of various available replacement agreements. For example, the right side of the payments table in FIG. 70 shows the financial criteria corresponding to different lease terms ranging from 24-72 months. For each lease term, the table indicates the interest rate, the monthly payment, and the difference between the monthly payment under that lease and the customer's current monthly payment. [0218] additional fees (e.g., license fee, bank acquisition fee, or the like) may be required in addition to the replacement product payments. In some embodiments, the payments calculated for a replacement product includes fees (e.g., delivery charge, fuel-economy tax) related to the replacement agreement, Fig 1I shows deferred agreement calculations [0091]FIG. 1G, the section headings 130 indicate the names of the lenders associated with the replacement agreements shown under the section headings 130. Any suitable information about the replacement agreements may be displayed, including but not limited to a contract term (e.g., 36 months, 48 months, 60 months, or the like), the type of agreement (e.g., lease, purchase, deferred payment), a residual or deferred payment amount, a capitalized cost or amount financed, a money factor or interest rate charged on the replacement agreement, a periodic payment associated with the replacement agreement, and difference (e.g., text 134) between the client's periodic payment under the current agreement (e.g., text 116 in FIG. 1E) and the payment under the replacement agreement (e.g., text 132)) and
Warner teaches re-signing up for the first plan after expiration of the lease contract period and smaller than a total of the payment amount during a first period which is a period identical to the recontract period in a case of signing a lease contract for a used car different from the new car for the first period with the first plan.([0092] entering into a replacement agreement may, just because of the benefit of avoiding usage fees or also because of other financial reasons, be financially attractive to a customer. In such circumstances, a dealer may be able to present a customer with a scenario in which projected future use fees are eliminated—such a scenario may appear to the customer like one in which the dealer ate or forgave use-fees while the dealer is, in fact, not out of pocket for such fees (as a dealer typically would be for forgiving or assuming such fees), Fig 59 shows payment for new sale of used car, [0222] the process 3600 can be configured to generate an alert only when the difference between a new payment amount and a current payment amount is negative; that is, when the new payment amount is less than the current payment amount.[0234] a replacement product may comprise one or more automobiles among the dealership's new or pre-owned inventory, a new car offered by a manufacturer, or an automobile from any other suitable provider. )
Regarding Claim 3, Warner as modified by Murase/Cooksey teaches the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1,
Warner teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute setting the payment amount for each of the contractual plans such that a total of the payment amount during a combined period of the lease contract period and the recontract period increases ([0222] the process 3600 generates an alert whenever the difference between the amount that a customer will pay for a new but comparable financial arrangement as compared to the customer's current financial arrangement is below a threshold value. For example, in one embodiment, the process 3600 generates an alert whenever the difference in payment amount is less 10%, such that, for example, an alert is generated when a new payment amount would be $540 and a current payment amount is $500.)
in the order of (1) a total of the payment amount for the second plan during a period identical to the combined period in a case of signing the lease contract for the period identical to the combined period at the time of first signing ([0004] The replacement agreement may be any suitable type of financial agreement (e.g., a purchase contract, a lease, deferred payment, or the like), including the same type as the current agreement or a different type. In some instances, a person will agree to enter a replacement agreement if the replacement product and payments are acceptable. For example, a person may find the replacement product and the payments under the terms of the replacement agreement acceptable if they are sufficiently similar to the current product and payments under the current agreement. [0094] replacement agreements may be any suitable type of agreement, including but not limited to a lease agreement (first plan), a deferred or balloon agreement (second plan), a purchase agreement, or the like. Fig 35 shows payment calculations for different types of contract such as lease (first plan), ballon (second plan larger payment) and financial terms [0096] FIG. 35, deal sheet may have one, two, three, or more types of agreements (e.g., lease, balloon, retail purchase, or the like). Further, different types of agreements may have the same or different sets of parameters displayed in the deal sheet.), (2) a total of the payment amount for the first plan during the combined period in a case of signing the lease contract for the lease contract period at the time of first signing and further signing the lease contract for a period identical to the recontract period after expiration of the lease contract period (Fig 35 shows payment for lease (first plan) compared to current lease, [0222] the process 3600 generates an alert whenever the difference between the amount that a customer will pay for a new but comparable financial arrangement as compared to the customer's current financial arrangement is below a threshold value. For example, in one embodiment, the process 3600 generates an alert whenever the difference in payment amount is less 10%, such that, for example, an alert is generated when a new payment amount would be $540 and a current payment amount is $500.), and (3) a total of the payment amount for the second plan during the combined period in a case of signing the lease contract for the lease contract period at the time of first signing and further signing the lease contract for a period identical to the recontract period after expiration of the lease contract period.([0113] Selecting the sort radio buttons 1405 may be used to sort the data in a variety of ways such as follow up date, by prospect or client, by maturity date as in when the term of the purchase or lease will expire, and by series of vehicle., [0115] one or more deal sheet parameters are customizable (e.g., a rebate amount or the like), a person may alter the one or more parameters and review the number and types of deal sheets generated (e.g., how many alerts). Categories of deal sheets include, but are not limited to, an “alert,” a “sale,” an “expired alert,” and a “lease ending.”, [0116] Selecting one or more of checkboxes 306 may be used to limit the displayed contact management entries to a particular combination of sale or transaction types associated with a client, such as a lease, a retail sale, a balloon, or the like. A lease ending deal sheet comprises a deal sheet for a client whose current agreement is a lease and that lease will end within a specified time (e.g., near the end of the lease). )
Regarding Claim 4, Warner as modified by Murase/Cooksey teaches the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1,
Warner teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute setting, to identical amounts, a monthly amount of the payment amount for the second plan during a period identical to the recontract period in a case of signing the lease contract for a period identical to a combined period of the lease contract period and the recontract period at the time of first signing and the monthly amount of the payment amount for the second plan during the recontract period in a case of signing the lease contract for a period identical to the lease contract period at the time of first signing and further signing the lease contract for a period identical to the recontract period after expiration of the lease contract period. ([0113] Using the view 1400, the manager may customize the data displayed in view by filtering data, sorting data, ordering data, ranking data, [0118] Categories can include the following: “Alert, which can indicate a customer who can get into a new vehicle and continue paying about the same; “Flex,” which can indicate a customer who is flexible to different contract terms (e.g., longer or shorter duration) and can get into a new vehicle and continue paying the same)
Regarding Claim 5, Warner as modified by Murase/Cooksey teaches the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, further comprising
Warner teaches a storage configured to store information on the payment amount during the lease contract period corresponding to each of the first plan and the second plan ([0093] The information about the replacement agreement may be added to the system in any suitable manner (e.g., including but not limited to manual entry, automated entry, manual importation, automatic importation, static addition, dynamic addition, or the like) and using any suitable form of data (e.g., database, flat file, or the like). In some instances, a local car dealership may have some or all of the information about the replacement agreement in a software system from which the information may be obtained. [0200] the financing information 3910, the customer information 3915, and product information 3920 is stored permanently within the financial terms alert generation system 3905 to provide local storage and caching of data., [0202] the information retrieval module 3930 stores the retrieved information in local storage accessible to the financial terms alert generation system 3905, such as by storing the information in the financing information 3910, the customer information 3915, and the product information 3920),
Warner teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute receiving, from the user terminal, second information giving an instruction to output information on a monthly amount of the payment amount during the recontract period for at least one of the first plan and the second plan as information on the payment amount in a case of re-signing up for the at least one of the first plan and the second plan (Fig 35 and [0030] shows payment calculations for different types of contract such as lease (first plan), ballon (second plan) and financial terms [0102] The payments area on the right hand side of FIG. 70 can display information about the options for leasing or financing a replacement product. This information can include a comparison of the customer's current financing agreement and the terms of various available replacement agreements. The right side of the payments table in FIG. 70 shows the financial criteria corresponding to different lease terms (different plans) ranging from 24-72 months. For each lease term, the table indicates the interest rate, the monthly payment, and the difference between the monthly payment under that lease and the customer's current monthly payment. The left hand side of the table shows the financial criteria corresponding to different financing periods for a retail purchase of the replacement product. For each financing period, the table indicates the interest rate, the monthly payment, and the difference between the monthly payment under the financing agreement and the customer's current monthly payment. [0218] additional fees (e.g., license fee, bank acquisition fee, or the like) may be required in addition to the replacement product payments. In some embodiments, the payments calculated for a replacement product includes fees (e.g., delivery charge, fuel-economy tax) related to the replacement agreement. ) (second plan payment more than fir