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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of 09/25/2025, Applicant, on 10/09/2025, canceled claims 1-5 and added claims 6-7. Claims 6-7 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/09/2025 are directed towards canceled claims 1-5. Thus, there are no arguments for claims 6-7 as they are newly added claims. The updated 35 USC § 103 and 101 rejections of claims 6-7 are applied in light of Applicant's amendments.
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with See MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the computer program product (6-7 are directed to potentially eligible categories of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), which falls into the “Mental Process” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping.
The limitations reciting the abstract idea(s) (Mental process), as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: receiving…designation of desired work on a vehicle from the user terminal, the desired work being selected from a statutory inspection, a repair, tire replacement, a battery replacement, a brake pad replacement, an item attachment, or a software update, identifying…the first facility TD associated with the user, determining whether a first facility corresponding to the first facility TD is able to handle the desired work,in response to a determination that the first facility is able to handle the desired work, outputting recommendation information including at least a name, location, and contact of the first facility to the user terminal, in response to a determination that the first facility is not able to handle the desired work, identifying, from the facility information database, a second facility that belongs to a same group as the first facility and that is capable of handling the desired work, and in a case where a plurality of second facilities are present, specifying a facility from the plurality of second facilities nearest to the location of the user as the second facility, and outputting recommendation information including at least a name, location, and contact of the second facility to the user terminal.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a communication unit configured to communicate with a user terminal; a storage unit including a user information database that stores a user TD, a vehicle TD, a location of the user, and a first facility TD associated with the user; and a facility information database that stores, for each of a plurality of facilities, a facility TD, a facility location, and information on a corresponding work that can be handled by the facility; a control unit configured to execute receiving …; (as recited in claim 6). The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) is/are directed to: a communication unit configured to communicate with a user terminal; a storage unit including a user information database that stores a user TD, a vehicle TD, a location of the user, and a first facility TD associated with the user; and a facility information database that stores, for each of a plurality of facilities, a facility TD, a facility location, and information on a corresponding work that can be handled by the facility; a control unit configured to execute receiving …; (as recited in claim 6) for implementing the claim steps/functions. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim.
In addition, Applicant’s Specification (paragraph [0020]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. See, e.g., Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Further, the courts have found the presentation of data to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The dependent claims (7) are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract idea via additional details of the abstract idea. Claim 7 recite: “wherein in a case where the second facility is not present within a predetermined range including the location of the user, the control unit is configured to identify, from the facility information database, the second facility that is present outside the predetermined range and is capable of handling the desired work, and to output recommendation information including at least a name, location, and contact of the identified second facility to the user terminal”, without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and without additional elements that amount to significantly more to the claims.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 20230334438 (hereinafter “Horstmann”) et al., in view of U.S. Patent 11587444 to (hereinafter “Conroy”) et al.
As per claim 6, Horstmann teaches an information processing device comprising:
a communication unit configured to communicate with a user terminal; a storage unit including a user information database that stores a user TD, a vehicle TD, a location of the user, and a first facility TD associated with the user; and a facility information database that stores, for each of a plurality of facilities, a facility TD, a facility location, and information on a corresponding work that can be handled by the facility; and a control unit configured to execute receiving, via the communication unit, designation of desired work on a vehicle from the user terminal, the desired work being selected from a statutory inspection, a repair, tire replacement, a battery replacement, a brake pad replacement, an item attachment, or a software update, identifying, from the user information database, the first facility TD associated with the user, determining whether a first facility corresponding to the first facility TD is able to handle the desired work, in response to a determination that the first facility is able to handle the desired work, outputting recommendation information including at least a name, location, and contact of the first facility to the user terminal, in response to a determination that the first facility is not able to handle the desired work, identifying, from the facility information database…; Horstmann 0060-0065: “a user can execute an application on a user device that will guide the user to capture images of the vehicle of sufficiently high quality so that the machine learning models can effectively classify the damage incurred by the vehicle. In one embodiment, as described above, one or more machine learning models can be designed so that images of certain pre-identified parts can be used as inputs to determine whether structural damage was suffered… , the AI system identifies the availability and delivery time of replacement parts. As described above, the AI system can use the damaged part feature determination of 310 in association with make/model/year information of the damaged vehicle to identify available parts matching the damaged parts. A parts procurement service can provide information for the availability of the replacement part from various vendors integrated with the service, and an estimated time of delivery for the replacement part from one or more vendors can be determined…In 320, the AI system identifies the availability of repair shops to repair the damaged vehicle. As described above, the AI system can determine the types of repairs that need to be performed and identify a repair shop that is equipped to perform the repairs. Scheduling information for the repair shops can be used to identify the availability of the shops to perform the repairs. The estimated time of delivery for replacement parts can be used to improve the scheduling of the repairs… the AI system orders replacement parts and schedules a repair shop to perform the repairs. This step can include receiving a user selection of these repair process decisions. For example, the AI system can provide to the user a list of repair options via the user device, and the user can select one of the repair options, e.g., the parts vendor or the repair shop to use. The AI system could automatically notify a parts vendor of the parts order and/or a repair shop of the upcoming job. The AI system can further facilitate the necessary communication between the vehicle owner, the repair shop, the parts vendor, and/or the insurer through all stages of the repair process. The damage assessment can be provided to all interested parties, and additional information can be acquired by the user, the insurer, the parts vendor or the repair shop (e.g., additional images or video) in accordance with the procedures of these entities.”
Horstmann may not explicitly teach the following. However, Conroy teaches:
a second facility that belongs to a same group as the first facility and that is capable of handling the desired work, and in a case where a plurality of second facilities are present, specifying a facility from the plurality of second facilities nearest to the location of the user as the second facility, and outputting recommendation information including at least a name, location, and contact of the second facility to the user terminal; Conroy 029: “The scheduling server 114 may further utilize vehicle location information to determine one or more terminals 108 in a location suitable for servicing the vehicle 102. In an example, the scheduling server 114 may utilize current vehicle 102 location information from the vehicle data 112 to identify terminals 108 of those identified at index (C) that are close to the vehicle 102 (which may include terminals 108 having a fixed location and/or mobile terminals 108). In another example, the scheduling server 114 may utilize expected future vehicle 102 location information as identified from a route that the vehicle 102 is intended to traverse to identify terminals 108 of those identified at index (C) that will be close to the vehicle 102. At index (E), the scheduling server 114 sends one or more route waypoints to the vehicle 102 specifying the indicated one or more terminals 108. In an example, a waypoint may indicate a location of a fixed terminal 108. In another example, a waypoint may indicate a rendezvous location of the vehicle 102 to a mobile terminal 108. In yet another example, a waypoint may indicate that the vehicle 102 remains at its current location and the mobile terminal 108 will meet up with the vehicle 102, without the vehicle 102 having to move.”
Horstmann and Conroy are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Horstmann with the aforementioned teachings from Conroy with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to schedule data with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and analyze data [Conroy 029].
As per claim 7, Horstmann and Conroy teach all the limitations of claim 6.
Horstmann may not explicitly teach the following. However, Conroy teaches:
wherein in a case where the second facility is not present within a predetermined range including the location of the user, the control unit is configured to identify, from the facility information database, the second facility that is present outside the predetermined range and is capable of handling the desired work, and to output recommendation information including at least a name, location, and contact of the identified second facility to the user terminal; Conroy 029-030: “The scheduling server 114 may further utilize vehicle location information to determine one or more terminals 108 in a location suitable for servicing the vehicle 102. In an example, the scheduling server 114 may utilize current vehicle 102 location information from the vehicle data 112 to identify terminals 108 of those identified at index (C) that are close to the vehicle 102 (which may include terminals 108 having a fixed location and/or mobile terminals 108). In another example, the scheduling server 114 may utilize expected future vehicle 102 location information as identified from a route that the vehicle 102 is intended to traverse to identify terminals 108 of those identified at index (C) that will be close to the vehicle 102. At index (E), the scheduling server 114 sends one or more route waypoints to the vehicle 102 specifying the indicated one or more terminals 108. In an example, a waypoint may indicate a location of a fixed terminal 108. In another example, a waypoint may indicate a rendezvous location of the vehicle 102 to a mobile terminal 108. In yet another example, a waypoint may indicate that the vehicle 102 remains at its current location and the mobile terminal 108 will meet up with the vehicle 102, without the vehicle 102 having to move.”
Horstmann and Conroy are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Horstmann with the aforementioned teachings from Conroy with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to schedule data with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and analyze data [Conroy 029].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
HARA; Yusuke. INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, STORAGE MEDIUM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, .U.S. PGPub 20210024103 The present disclosure relates to an information processing apparatus, an information processing system, a storage medium, and an information processing method.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arif Ullah, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0161. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 5:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell, can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”).
/Arif Ullah/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625