DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees. The claims are directed to recommending vehicles based on a user experience. In the most recent office action, the Examiner argued, “…’This is plainly certain methods or organizing human activity, namely, marketing and sales activity. Despite Applicant’s insistence that, “The above-mentioned operations are not directed towards any marketing and sales activity.”, applicant goes on to state, “In fact, the above-mentioned operations are solely directed towards determining an experience value of the user … to generate recommendation information that is associated with selection of rental vehicles.” This argument still applies, as such, the claims are directed to certain methods or organizing human activity.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the use of an odometer does not change the finding that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues, “Further, the claimed "experience value", "matching level", and "matching degree" are specific data constructs that define computational relationships (e.g., correspondence between travel distance and feature items of the selectable vehicles). These limitations go beyond marketing or sales activities and define a particular technological process for transforming raw vehicle data into structured outputs used for automated vehicle selection recommendations. Further, the claimed operations require handling structured datasets and generating ranked outputs for multiple selectable vehicles, unlike fundamental economic principles or practices.” The Examiner disagrees. These features are not claimed as computer elements or data structure. Further, “handling structured datasets and generating ranked outputs” is not a qualifier for determination of an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues the claims recite a practical implementation “The Applicant's Specification describes, for example, "[a]ccording to the series of processing described above, when the user rents a rental vehicle, a value of the odometer is supplied to the share/car rental service server 212 in association with the rental vehicle management information at the time of return, and a travel distance is obtained according to a difference from a previous odometer value and supplied to the insurance company server 213 together with the rental vehicle management of information ... [t]hen, when the rental vehicle management information and the travel distance information are supplied from the car sharing/car rental service server 212, the insurance company server 213 calculates experience values of the vehicle rank item, the equipment item, and the characteristic item of a vehicle type specified on the basis of the rental vehicle management information, updates the experience value list and collects the updated experience value list to generate a driving history, and registers the driving history into the driving history DB 321." See [0246] and [0247] of the Specification (emphasis added).
Additionally, the Applicant's Specification describes, for example, "the value of the odometer may be acquired using a scan tool that is used for on-board diagnostics (OBD) ... [t]he scan tool 501 reads out various pieces of detection information including abnormality data detected in various auxiliary devices ... provided in a vehicle 210. In the rental vehicle recommendation system 201' in FIG. 20 ,the scan tool 501 reads out vehicle identification information (VIN) and individual values of the odometer at a start and an end of driving from the vehicle 210, and supplies to the communication device 211 through near field communication ... the rental vehicle recommendation system 201' in FIG. 20 , the communication device 211-1 acquires the values of the odometer 210 a at the start and the end of driving and the vehicle identification information (VIN) 210 c supplied from the scan tool 501, and transmits to a car sharing/car rental service server 212." See Specification at [0391], [0396], and [0401] (emphases added). The Examiner disagrees. The additional element described, namely the scan tool, is being used as a tool, to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration.
Applicant further argues, “Additionally, the claimed generation of matching levels, matching degrees, and recommendation information reflects a specific improvement in determining compatibility between users and vehicles, which is based on feature-based analysis. The invention provides a specific way of transforming raw odometer readings and vehicle-type data into evaluation metrics across feature items, thereby enabling accurate vehicle recommendations. In addition, the claimed apparatus is directed towards improvement in the functioning of the vehicle recommendation systems by introducing a structured framework that quantifies user experience and correlates it with vehicle features.” These are not improvements to an actual technology. Again what Applicant describes is a business improvement to abstract concepts.
When the claims are viewed as individually or in an ordered combination the claim language is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
receive a drivinq history of a user, from a scan, wherein the driving history includes a plurality of values of an odometer of a vehicle driven by the user;
receive a vehicle type the vehicle;
determine a travel distance of the user based on at least one of the plurality of values of the odometer;
determine a respective experience value of the user for each of a plurality of feature items of the vehicle, wherein
the determination of the respective experience value is based on each of the driving history and the vehicle type,
and the respective experience value corresponds to the travel distance;
determine, based on the respective experience value, a respective matching level for the each of the plurality of feature items of a plurality of selectable vehicles;
determine a respective matching degree for each of the plurality of selectable vehicles based on the respective matching level for the each of the plurality of feature items; and
generate recommendation information of the vehicle based on the respective matchinq degree for the each of the plurality of selectable vehicles
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of marketing and sales activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “units”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, units. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere 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);
- (CPU and information processing apparatuses)
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, -(vehicle, scan tool)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; mere data gathering/post solution activity; generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; While claims 4-10 describe varied units and vehicles, claim 11-driving system, brake and vehicle; 12-unit; vehicle; 14-unit and vehicle, 11-a variety of automobile features, 16-image sensor, these additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
The claims are not rejected by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights