35DETAILED 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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant's submission filed July 24, 2025, the Examiner has maintained and updated the 35 USC § 101 rejection.
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, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations that are considered to be abstract ideas:
Claim 1
acquire, vehicle information indicating a lease period of each leased vehicle of the leased vehicles;
identify periodically, from among the leased vehicles, expired vehicles whose lease periods have expired;
maintenance information corresponding to each expired vehicle of the expired vehicles, the maintenance information including a total number of times, man-hours, and component cost for each type of maintenance performed on the expired vehicle during the lease period;
calculate, based on the maintenance information, an amount of reward corresponding to each expired vehicle of the expired vehicles:
the calculated amount of reward, wherein an amount of reward of a first expired vehicle is calculated to be greater than an amount of reward of a second expired vehicle, the first expired vehicle having a smaller number of man- hours for the performed maintenance than the second expired vehicle.
The limitations of independent claim 1, as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely “advertising, marketing(e.g. offering a reward) or sales activities(e.g. leasing) or behaviors(e.g. offering a reward in the opposite matter is a type of inverse reward which is behavioral)” because the claims disclose acquiring the amount of times…, outputting information regarding a reward. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of using an information processing device, processor, display, maintenance terminal, and user terminal. The aforementioned additional generic computing elements perform the steps of the claims at a high level of generality (i.e. As a generic medium performing generic computer function of acquiring and outputting such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of information processing device, processor, display, maintenance terminal, and user terminal to acquire, identify, calculate and display amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The dependent claims 4, 5, appear to merely further limit the abstract and as such, the analysis of dependent claims 4, 5 results in the claims “reciting” an abstract idea. The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept (significantly more) other than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1, 4 and 5 are not patent eligible.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4 and 5 would be allowable if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regards to claims 1, 4 and 5, the closest prior art found by the examiner is the prior art of Schuchardt (US 2006/0265235)) which discloses, “via network with a plurality of leased vehicles, a plurality of user terminals corresponding to the leased vehicles, and a maintenance terminal performing maintenance for the leased vehicles, the information processing device comprising: a memory: and a processor configured to: execute acquire, from the memory, vehicle information indicating a lease period of each leased vehicle of the leased vehicles: identify periodically, from among the leased vehicles, expired vehicles whose lease periods have expired” However, the Examiner was unable to find prior art for the limitations of claims 1, 4, and 5 and 15 that states, “acquire, from the maintenance terminal, maintenance information corresponding to each expired vehicle of the expired vehicles, the maintenance information including a total number of times, man-hours, and component cost for each type of maintenance performed on the expired vehicle during the lease period: calculate, based on the maintenance information, an amount of reward corresponding to each expired vehicle of the expired vehicles and display, via displays of the user terminals, the calculated amount of reward wherein an amount of reward of a first expired vehicle is calculated to be greater than an amount of reward of a second expired vehicle, the first expired vehicle having a smaller number of man- hours for the performed maintenance than the second expired vehicle..” Thus claims 1, 4, and 5 would be allowable over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the 101 rejection, that the amended claims do not fall within an abstract idea in a manner of certain methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees evaluating financial/maintenance data for leased vehicles to assign rewards is considered a commercial or business practice (i.e. fundamental economic process and/or also list managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
The applicant further argues the 101 rejection by stating, “the claimed device involves additional features of periodically identifying expired vehicles based on the acquired information of the lease period, acquiring maintenance information such as man-hours and component cost of each of the expired vehicles, calculating rewards based on the actual man-hours, and displaying reward information via user terminals. At least these additional features of amended claim 1 integrate the alleged judicial exception into the practical application of allowing automated reward determination for expired vehicles based on real-world maintenance records in a lease system. In addition, the use of reward calculation based on man-hours provides a tangible technical benefit over conventional lease systems where maintenance frequency is fixed or arbitrary. Specifically, the calculation based on real maintenance cost enables a more equitable reward system that adapts to actual vehicle use, reducing unnecessary maintenance and improving user satisfaction. When a vehicle receives lower maintenance cost, a higher reward can be provided to the user, which improves user satisfaction while reducing excessive”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees the additional elements of information processing device/processor configured to acquire data via a network, network used for communication, memory for storing vehicle information and identification of expired vehicles, maintenance terminal used acquire maintenance information, and display of calculated reward via user terminals do not provide any improvement to the computer, other technology or technical, Thus does not appear to add significantly more to the judicial exception. NOTE MPEP 2106.05(a) It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Also note Per MPEP 2106.05 (a) However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.
None of the aforementioned additional elements changes the way the computer operates, no provides a technical solution to a technical problem. The computer is merely used to execute business logic. The applicant cites paragraphs 11-15, 18 and 30, as evidence of integration into a practical application. The applicant states that claims are directed to improving user satisfaction, while reducing excessive maintenance and a clear practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees user satisfaction and reducing excessive maintenance is merely the intended result, which does not show an improvement to the computer, technology or other technical. It merely uses generic computing to a business rule. The applicant cited paragraphs, however the cited paragraphs do not discuss a technical problem and an unconventional technical solution. Per MPEP 2106.05(a) - if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The applicant’s claims do not appear to have limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application. Thus the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/D.A.P/ Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622