Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. Applicant’s amendment filed 04/06/2026 is entered. Claims 1-6 are currently amended. Claims 1-6 are pending for examination. Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1.
2. The claims Interpretation 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/12/2026 is now moot and withdrawn in view of the current amendments to the pending claims 1-6.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 , see Remarks pages 7-8 regarding rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s arguments are primarily directed to the new language added to the independent claims 1 and 6 comprising, “ the remote processor makes an ECU (electronic control unit) included in the mobile object transmit a detection result to the remote processor, the detection result being detected by a sensor that is included in the mobile object and that detects a
load applied to a target part of the mobile object, and the remote processor obtains
the detection result, which is recorded as the use history information”, Examiner disagrees because the use of sensors in automobiles to detect measurements of the components in automobile and use them towards maintenance of the vehicle and to know the status of the vehicle’s components does not amount to “"significantly more" or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This concept of sensors in automobiles to detect measurements of the components in automobile and use them towards maintenance of the vehicle and to know the status of the vehicle’s components is an old practice before the effective filing date of the application. The application of sensors to detect the measurement of performance and status of various components in the vehicle is a generic computer function as the claims do not relate to any specific improvement (s) over the existing process of using sensor to detect and store the performances of the vehicle components. Thus, using a known standing process of using sensors to detect the status of the components in the vehicle for using the data to advise maintenance or repair or replacement or evaluate the condition/value of the vehicle without any details recognizing technical improvement does not add any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Also, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Just as an evidence that use of sensors is a well-established long standing practice before the effective date of the Applicant’s invention to detect the status of the components in the vehicle, see reference: Haro [ US 20180144562 A1, para 0004], “ Engines and drivetrains in modern automobiles rely on controllers or computers to monitor inputs from various sensors located throughout the engine and drivetrain, and to control various outputs to those systems. ……”].
In view of the foregoing, the additional elements in the currently amended independent claims 1 and 6 referred to by the Applicant in his Remarks do not integrate the abstract idea of “Mental Processes” grouping [as analyzed in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/12/2026 and also in the current rejection under 35 USC 101, see below] because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or amount to “Significantly More”. The currently amended claims have been rejected under 35 USC 101, see below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation [mobile object], and the claim also recites [ remote processor makes an ECU (electronic control unit) included in the mobile object transmit a detection result to the remote processor, the detection result being detected by a sensor that is included in the mobile object and that detects a load applied to a target part of the mobile object, and the remote processor obtains the detection result, which is recorded as the use history information. ] which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation only restricted to a vehicle and none of the other mobile objects. A mobile object includes vast range of items other than a vehicle such as, cyclist, motor cyclist, pedestrian, airplane, birds, lawn mowers, hand moving carts in grocery stores, any children toys such as a scooter, and many which are not described in the Applicant’s disclosure to use a sensor to detect a load applied to a target part of the mobile object,. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims and thus fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Since the dependent claims 2-5 inherit the deficiency of base claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
The other independent claim 6 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Note: Examiner suggests replacing the broader term [mobile object] by the term [ vehicle] to overcome this rejection.
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 is directed to a mobile object brokerage system, and the currently amended claim also recites “ “which is the narrower statement only restricted to a vehicle and none of the other mobile objects [see Applicant’s Specification paras 0015—0018]. A mobile object includes vast range of items other than a vehicle such as, cyclist, motor cyclist, pedestrian, airplane, birds, lawn mowers, hand moving carts in grocery stores, any children toys such as a scooter, and many other mobile objects which are not described in the Applicant’s disclosure to use a sensor to detect a load applied to a target part of the mobile object in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Accordingly, claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-5 as fail to comply with the written description requirement.
The other independent claim 6 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-5 are to a system /apparatus, and claim 6 to a process comprising a series of steps, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A mobile object brokerage system comprising a
remote processor in communication with a mobile object, the remote processor
being configured to:
(i) recognize a desired-remaining-Ife condition of a user for the mobile object, the user intending to start use of the mobile object through a predetermined
transaction;
(ii) recognize a remaining life of each of a plurality of candidate mobile objects that are candidates in the predetermined transaction;
(iii) recognize a remaining-life consumption degree on a basis of use history information about a mobile object by the user, the remaining-life consumption degree being a consumption degree of a remaining life of a mobile object per predetermined period for the user to use the mobile object;
(iv) calculate a corrected remaining life obtained by correcting the remaining life of each of a plurality of the candidate mobile with the remaining-life consumption degree; and as a target for the predetermined transaction with the user, the candidate mobile object having the corrected remaining life that meets the desired-remaining-life condition, wherein
(v) the remote processor makes an ECU (electronic control unit) included in the mobile object transmit a detection result to the remote processor, the detection result
being detected by a sensor that is included in the mobile object and that detects a
load applied to a target part of the mobile object, and the remote processor obtains
the detection result, which is recorded as the use history information.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1-6 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations of claim 1 comprising, “ (i)recognize a desired-remaining-Ife condition of a user for the mobile object, the user intending to start use of the mobile object through a predetermined transaction; (ii) recognize a remaining life of each of a plurality of candidate mobile objects that are candidates in the predetermined transaction; (iii) recognize a remaining-life consumption degree on a basis of use history information about a mobile object by the user, the remaining-life consumption degree being a consumption degree of a remaining life of a mobile object per predetermined period for the user to use the mobile object; (iv)calculate a corrected remaining life obtained by correcting the remaining life of each of a plurality of the candidate mobile with the remaining-life consumption degree; and as a target for the predetermined transaction with the user, the candidate mobile object having the corrected remaining life that meets the desired-remaining-life condition “; under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. That is, other than reciting “by a processor” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the processor” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected related to candidate mobile objects such as vehicles and the potential/prospective buyers , wherein a human observer based on the object data such as vehicle data can evaluate the remaining life of an old vehicle based on the miles already completed, past performance of the specific brand and model and the current condition of the vehicle and the human observer can also estimate and calculate the years that the buyer may like to use the vehicle and based on these calculations make recommendations. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the limitations of claim 1 out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-5 recite a mental process. Since the other independent claim 6 recites similar limitations as claim 1, it is analyzed on the same basis.
Accordingly, all pending claims 1-6 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-6: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of using generic computer components, as shown in Figure 1 executing the following steps:( (i) recognize a desired-remaining-Ife condition of a user for the mobile object, the user intending to start use of the mobile object through a predetermined transaction; (ii) recognize a remaining life of each of a plurality of candidate mobile objects that are candidates in the predetermined transaction; (iii)recognize a remaining-life consumption degree on a basis of use history information about a mobile object by the user, the remaining-life consumption degree being a consumption degree of a remaining life of a mobile object per predetermined period for the user to use the mobile object; (iv) calculate a corrected remaining life obtained by correcting the remaining life of each of a plurality of the candidate mobile with the remaining-life consumption degree; and as a target for the predetermined transaction with the user, the candidate mobile object having the corrected remaining life that meets the desired-remaining-life condition, wherein (v) the remote processor makes an ECU (electronic control unit) included in the mobile object transmit a detection result to the remote processor, the detection result being detected by a sensor that is included in the mobile object and that detects a load applied to a target part of the mobile object, and the remote processor obtains the detection result, which is recorded as the use history information.”.
In the limitations of steps (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv)the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f): Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
The limitations in step (v) “ the remote processor makes an ECU (electronic control unit) included in the mobile object transmit a detection result to the remote processor, the detection result being detected by a sensor that is included in the mobile object and that detects a
load applied to a target part of the mobile object, and the remote processor obtains the detection result, which is recorded as the use history information”, recite the use of sensors to detect a load applied to a target part of the mobile object which is stored by ECU and the remote processor obtains the detection result, which is recorded as the use history information. The step of obtaining the detection result by the sensors from the ECU is mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Further, this limitation of obtaining detection result is performed by a computer , wherein the computer is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The use of sensors in automobiles to detect measurements of the components in automobile and use them towards maintenance of the vehicle and to know the status of the vehicle’s components does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This concept of sensors in automobiles to detect measurements of the components in automobile and use them towards maintenance of the vehicle and to know the status of the vehicle’s components is an old practice before the effective filing date of the application. The application of sensors to detect the measurement of performance and status of various components in the vehicle is a generic computer function as the claims do not relate to any specific improvement (s) over the existing process of using sensor to detect and store the performances of the vehicle components. Thus, using a known standing process of using sensors to detect the status of the components in the vehicle for using the data to advise maintenance or repair or replacement or evaluate the condition/value of the vehicle without any details recognizing technical improvement does not add any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Also, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claim 1 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Since the other independent claim 6 recites similar limitations as claim 1, it is analyzed on the same basis as direct to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims:
Limitations of claims 2-5 are mere extension of the limitations analyzed for claim 1 directed to estimating changes based on recognized data on life consumption degree and the profile information of the user, such as a vehicle, that meets the desired-remaining-life condition, recognizing a remaining life for each of a plurality of target parts included in the candidate mobile object, the remaining-life consumption degree recognition section recognizes the remaining-life consumption degree for each of a plurality of the target parts and determining for each of a plurality of the target parts whether or not the corrected remaining life meets the desired-remaining-life condition, and making selection of a candidate mobile object that meets the desired-remaining-life condition. All these limitations, as analyzed for claim 1, reciting mental processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-6, as analyzed above, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims 1-6 are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Step 2A=Yes. Claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1-6 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims 1-6 are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claims recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-6 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The application of sensors to detect the measurement of performance and status of various components in the vehicle is a generic computer function as the claims do not relate to any specific improvement (s) over the existing process of using sensor to detect and store the performances of the vehicle components. Thus, using a known standing process of using sensors to detect the status of the components in the vehicle for using the data to advise maintenance or repair or replacement or evaluate the condition/value of the vehicle without any details recognizing technical improvement does not add any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea or amount to “Significant More”. Also, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Just as an evidence that use of sensors is a well-established long standing practice before the effective date of the Applicant’s invention to detect the status of the components in the vehicle, see reference: Haro [ US 20180144562 A1, para 0004], “ Engines and drivetrains in modern automobiles rely on controllers or computers to monitor inputs from various sensors located throughout the engine and drivetrain, and to control various outputs to those systems. ……”].
Even when considered in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-6 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, Claims 1-6, as drafted, are patent ineligible.
7. Prior art discussion:
Reference independent claims 1 and 6, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither teaches nor renders obvious, at least the limitations, as a whole comprising “ a remote processor configured to recognize a remaining-life consumption degree on a basis of use history information about a mobile object by the user, the remaining-life consumption degree being a consumption degree of a remaining life of a mobile object per predetermined period for the user to use the mobile object; a corrected-remaining-life calculation section configured, calculate a corrected remaining life obtained by correcting the remaining life of each of a plurality of the candidate mobile objects recognized with the remaining-life consumption degree, and , as a target for the predetermined transaction with the user, the candidate mobile object having the corrected remaining life that meets the desired-remaining-life condition.”. Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1
8. Discussion of the most relevant prior art: The following references have been identified as the most relevant prior art to the claimed invention.
(i) Haro [ US 20180144562 A1; see para 0004 and 0012] describes that it is well-known that Engines and drivetrains in modern automobiles rely on controllers or computers to monitor inputs from various sensors located throughout the engine and drivetrain, and to control various outputs to those systems, wherein the integrated automobile diagnostic and troubleshooting device includes circuitry comprising various test instruments and troubleshooting devices integrated into a single case for easy operation by a single automotive repair technician The circuitry includes measurement circuitry for detecting the continuity of a portion of the electrical systems or components of the automobile under test, and motor control circuitry for applying a differential voltage output to the electrical systems.”
(ii) Sizemore [US 12118834 B2; see col.5, lines 23-44, col.7, lines 42-52, and col.11, lines 37-65] describes an electrical connection of the electrical connector 135 can receive data packets from the vehicle component 130., wherein the data packets can include messages, pieces of information, data, publications, strings, data frames describing the status of the vehicle component 130 or characteristics of the vehicle component 130 and measurements of the vehicle component which can help in evaluating operating settings of the vehicle component 130, a state of the vehicle component 130, faults of the vehicle component 130 and flag such faults. , The electrical connections can be connections for a controller area network (CAN). Such status and faults of the component, a current measurement of the sensor 120, a power measurement of the sensor 120 can be displayed on a user interface 145. Further, the diagnostic tool of the vehicle can be integrated with a charging station of an electric vehicle. The diagnostic includes a data processing system to read and analyzes data packets and also suggest and identify resolutions or maintenance tasks.
(iii) US 20210081999 A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/12/2026 [See claim 1] describes a cloud-based server calculates the remaining life of a merchant’s product and transmits a discounted price in real time.
(iv) US 20130036804 A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/12/2026 [owned by the same assignee Honda Motor Co. Ltd.; see Abstract ] describes calculating remaining service life of the air cleaner of the vehicle.
NPL references:
(v) Bai Zhanyuan et al. ; "A design of the Intelligent electronic control seat belt retractor based on automotive active safety technology," 2010 International Conference on Computer Application and System Modeling (ICCASM 2010), Taiyuan, 2010, pp. V3-403-V3-406,”; retrieved from IP. COM on 0428/2026 describes designs including an integrated controller area network (Controller Area Network, CAN) communications, millimeter-wave radar technology, micro electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) sensor technology and embedded processing technology to help in receiving car status information and various sensors data, from the vehicle body control systems, and also send control messages to the CAN bus. The system uses the MEMS accelerometer and millimeter-wave radar, to get the vehicle deceleration or collision status information, [See page 403].
(vi) V. R. Kanakala, K. Jagan Mohan and V. K. Reddy, "A Survey on Efficient Methodologies & optimization techniques for vehicle maintenance using IoT and Transfer Learning," 2022 International Conference on Smart Technologies and Systems for Next Generation Computing (ICSTSN), Villupuram, India, 2022, pp. 1-6, retrieved from IP. Com on 01072026 and cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/12/2026 describes providing alerts on the remaining lifetime of parts in the vehicle requiring service or replacement.
Foreign references:
(vii) WO 2022097852 A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/12/2026; seeFig.15 the flow diagram and associated text) describes a terminal 11 mounted on an agricultural vehicle 10 acquires the driving parameters and transmits them to a server 20 in real time. The driving parameters could include “ engine torque ratio, engine load ratio, engine RPM, engine operation hour, accumulated fuel consumption, fuel consumption (or instantaneous fuel efficiency), engine failure information, engine oil temperature, and engine room temperature. , the temperature of the coolant, the current shift stage, the temperature of the transmission oil, the mileage, and the driving time may include one or more” and the server based on these parameters calculates the remaining life of the agricultural vehicle 10 , which keeps on changing corresponding to the changes in the driving parameters. If the remaining life is equal or less than a specified/predetermined time, a notification is sent to the concerned person’s electronic device 40 so that the concerned person can take adequate steps to replace or inspect the agricultural vehicle.
(viii) WO 2019159475 A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/12/2026 [owned by the same assignee Honda Motor Co. Ltd.; see Abstract ] describes calculating remaining battery life of an EV.
(ix) JP 2022045665 A cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/12/2026 [See claims] describe that the ordering system requires remaining life information of a product along with capacity information, quantity information, and price information.
(xi CN 116359476 A cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/12/2026 [see Abstract] describes a vehicle oil detecting method and device wherein the device determines the remaining service life of oil product in the target vehicle based on the time of changing the oil product last time.
(xi) CN 106204138 A [See Abstract] describes determining a vehicle residual value by obtaining historical data of target object/vehicle in the full life period, and using the historical data.
9. Allowability:
If the independent claims 1 and 6 are amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection and 35 USC 112 rejections, the application can be placed in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Final Rejection:
10 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 YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights