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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1 – 7, drawn to a method for monitoring and recording automotive information related to vehicle owners, service shops, and parts vendors , classified in G06Q 30/0282, rating or review if business operators or products;
II. Claims 8 – 15, drawn to a method for estimating repair procedures and estimates, providing payments and rentals, via a token blockchain, classified in G06Q 10/20, administration of product repair or maintenance.
III. Claims 16 – 20, drawn to an apparatus to facilitate capturing and transmitting signals and providing data, classified in G06Q 30/012, providing warranty services.
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the recording of information related to vehicle owners, service shops, and parts vendors, are not required for the method steps of group II. The subcombination has separate utility such as payment portals, providing rentals, monitoring continuing education credits, and purchasing decisions.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; and,
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Inventions I and III are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the recording of information related to vehicle owners, service shops, and parts vendors, are not required for the method steps of group III. The subcombination has separate utility such as video conferencing, utilizing the eyewear device recited.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; and,
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Inventions II and III are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the method for estimating repair procedures and estimates, providing payments and rentals, are not required for the method steps of group III. The subcombination has separate utility such as video conferencing with other technicians, utilizing the eyewear device recited.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; and,
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
During a telephone conversation with Dean Niro on 11/14/2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1 - 7. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 8 - 15 (Group II) and 16 - 20 (Group III) are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: each claim ends with a period. See MPEP 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 5 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such a claim limitation is:
a parts procurement module that enables users to locate parts in claim 1.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of eligibility analysis, the instant claims are directed towards a system and application; thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the claims set forth a vehicle service and maintenance record keeping system so that owners can be notified of services performed and parts needed and a shop rating and review facet that allows these owners to be mindful of how and who to interact with in obtaining vehicle services. The claims describe social activities of getting a vehicle repaired as well as the interactions among the service shops and vehicle owners. Therefore, the recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people which is categorized as a certain method of organizing human activity abstract idea.
Claim 1 contains those elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A system and application for use in the automotive industry for monitoring and recording automotive services comprising:
an application accessible by a vehicle owner, a service shop and a parts vendor;
a database containing information related to the vehicle owner, the service shop and the parts vendor;
a database of vehicle information relating to the identity, vehicle owner information and VIN number associated with a plurality of vehicles;
a database of parts information relating to vehicle parts located at the parts vendor;
a platform to input service and maintenance records relating one of the vehicles in the database wherein the information relates to the service provided by the service shop, the parts supplied by the vendor, the information is stored in a database corresponding to the vehicle VIN in which the repairs are preformed;
an automated service and maintenance notifications mechanism to timely send notifications to vehicle owners, informing the owner of service and maintenance issues on a predetermined schedule;
a blockchain that collects and securely stores the vehicle history, including accidents and filed insurance claims;
a parts procurement module that enables users to locate and purchase parts directly from vendors supplying Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) parts;
a system to record and provide users with service shop information and rating information regarding the technicians and the vendor associated with a service shop, wherein the application operates to collect service shop information relating to the services offered, and certifications obtained and stores the information in a database
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[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 does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claim 1 recites only the following additional elements:
A system and application for use in the automotive industry;
a platform;
an automated service and maintenance notifications mechanism;
a blockchain that securely stores;
a parts procurement module;
a system
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described the system generically in their disclosure, at Specification, page 8, and Figures 2A – 2C, as filed. This includes a module that runs on the blockchain software, thus detailing use of a computer in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data). Further, the use of blockchain describes leveraging a shared ledger – a database – to record transactions. Blockchain inherently provides immutability when storing data. However, the recited “blockchain-based system operates within a web application”, therefore, also describing use of a computer in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data). Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. 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 implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception within a computer environment cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2 – 7 contain limitations that are further refinements to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. Recitations to technician information, technician blogs, service notifications, accident and insurance history, and shop information and ratings, are all the core facts of the vehicle service and maintenance records and why and how owners, and shops and technicians interact when obtaining vehicle services. The claims are directed to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Further, the claims describe using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, claims 1 – 7 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 2, 4, and 6, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yezersky (US 2021/0287456), in view of NPL document CarFax Vehicle History Report, in view of Schmitz (US 2022/0012694), further in view of Noplos (US 11,250,491).
Regarding claim 1, Yezersky discloses an application accessible by a vehicle owner, a service shop and a parts vendor; (first, see [0037 and 0039] detailing a system such as a web services API to facilitate communications among users; at [0050] it is disclosed a repair shop operates with a webpage; at [0028 and Figure 1] owners are involved, at [0017 and Figure 8A, parts suppliers (vendors) are accessing the system);
a database containing information related to the vehicle owner, the service shop and the parts vendor; (at [0026] it is disclosed the system may maintain component and vehicle information in a decentralized database; at [0033] registered owners are included in the database);
a database of vehicle information relating to the identity, vehicle owner information and VIN number associated with a plurality of vehicles; (at [0026] it is disclosed the system may maintain component and vehicle information in a decentralized database; at [0069] VIN numbers are disclosed);
a database of parts information relating to vehicle parts located at the parts vendor; (see [0078] where the system involves the repair shop and its “part room”; thus , disclosing part inventory located at the vendor. This part inventory based on part information stored within the system);
a blockchain that collects and securely stores the vehicle history, including accidents and filed insurance claims; (Yezersky details a blockchain database at [0041]; at [0073], Yezersky includes data partners that include vehicle history reports providers (CarFax, insurance companies, etc.), and discusses data received from vehicle accidents, at [0045]);
a parts procurement module that enables users to locate and purchase parts directly from vendors supplying Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) parts; (see [0024] detailing owners obtaining OEM parts to be used by the shop for repair of their vehicle; see also Figure 1 showing OEM’s, repair shops, and owners all in communication when obtaining parts).
Not disclosed by Yezersky is a platform to input service and maintenance records relating one of the vehicles in the database wherein the information relates to the service provided by the service shop, the parts supplied by the vendor, the information is stored in a database corresponding to the vehicle VIN in which the repairs are performed.
However, the NPL document CarFax Vehicle History Report discloses a platform (Carfax.com) that allows users to service and maintenance records relating to vehicles based on the VIN. These recited elements are highlighted within the document and highlighted below:
PNG
media_image1.png
336
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
82
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to collect service and maintenance records based on a vehicle’s VIN as disclosed within the CarFax Vehicle History Report, and use this data within Yezersky’s method for communicating with a vehicle repair facility or a user of a vehicle regarding approved parts, because this provides the intended result of much pertinent data about a vehicle being available at one place for the public to obtain the most critical information before making an important, impactful financial decision regarding an expensive asset. The CarFax web app alludes to this benefit of providing trusted information that helps millions of people shop, buy, service and sell cars.
Not disclosed by Yezersky is an automated service and maintenance notifications mechanism to timely send notifications to vehicle owners, informing the owner of service and maintenance issues on a predetermined schedule.
However, Schmitz discloses a method for automobile maintenance scheduling and teaches notifications about recommended services being sent to owners, based on a recommended schedule or at owner’s set schedule. See [0034-0035].
It would have been obvious to send notifications about maintenance as disclosed by Schmitz, within Yezersky’s method for communicating with a vehicle repair facility or a user of a vehicle regarding approved parts, because this provides the intended result of an owner being alerted that a vehicle needs attention even when the owner is unaware that there is an issue or is unable to know and adhere to a recommended schedule. See Schmitz introduction at [0003].
Not disclosed by Yezersky is a system to record and provide users with service shop information and rating information regarding the technicians and the vendor associated with a service shop, wherein the application operates to collect service shop information relating to the services offered, and certifications obtained and stores the information in a database.
However, Noplos discloses a method for management of automotive services and teaches a system module that contains “…information about the technicians, such as relevant certifications, number of years of experience, customer reviews such as ratings and testimonials, etc.” [12:62].
It would have been obvious to provide shop and technician information as disclosed by Noplos, within Yezersky’s method for communicating with a vehicle repair facility or a user of a vehicle regarding approved parts, because this provides the intended result of providing sought after information that is important to an owner who cannot necessarily interact with a technician. By reviewing feedback as suggested by Noplos (see [1:15]), the owner is made aware of information not readily available, yet important for obtaining qualified work.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yezersky, NPL document CarFax Vehicle History Report, Schmitz, and Noplos discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Not disclosed by Yezersky is a database of technician information in a service shop relating to the certificates and credentials of a plurality of technicians.
However, Noplos discloses a method for management of automotive services and teaches a system module that contains “…information about the technicians, such as relevant certifications, number of years of experience, customer reviews such as ratings and testimonials, etc.” [12:62].
It would have been obvious to provide shop and technician information as disclosed by Noplos, within Yezersky’s method for communicating with a vehicle repair facility or a user of a vehicle regarding approved parts, because this provides the intended result of providing sought after information that is important to an owner who cannot necessarily interact with a technician. By reviewing feedback as suggested by Noplos (see [1:15]), the owner is made aware of information not readily available, yet important for obtaining qualified work.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yezersky, NPL document CarFax Vehicle History Report, Schmitz, and Noplos discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Further disclosed by Yezersky is an enhanced platform provided by blockchain database, see [0041]; noting that enhanced within the instant application is defined as being provided by “the power of blockchain”. See Specification page 17. Thus, Yezersky’s utilization of blockchain is deemed to disclose an enhanced platform.
Not disclosed within Yezersky is accident and insurance history of all services and maintenance preformed on the car which is associated with the VIN number of one of vehicles in the database and records information as the vehicle history.
However, the NPL document CarFax Vehicle History Report discloses a platform (Carfax.com) that allows users to obtain service and maintenance records relating to vehicles based on the VIN as well as accident and insurance information. Further snippets are below:
PNG
media_image3.png
85
690
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
36
702
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to collect accident and insurance data based on a vehicle’s VIN as disclosed within the CarFax Vehicle History Report, and use this data within Yezersky’s method for communicating with a vehicle repair facility or a user of a vehicle regarding approved parts, because this provides the intended result of much pertinent data about a vehicle being available at one place for the public to obtain the most critical information before making an important, impactful financial decision regarding an expensive asset. The CarFax web app alludes to this benefit of providing trusted information that helps millions of people shop, buy, service and sell cars.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yezersky, NPL document CarFax Vehicle History Report, Schmitz, and Noplos discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Not disclosed by Yezersky is a search mechanism providing owners to review the service shop information and rating information.
However, Noplos discloses a method for management of automotive services and teaches a system module that contains reviews about shops, see [12:62].
It would have been obvious to provide shop information as disclosed by Noplos, within Yezersky’s method for communicating with a vehicle repair facility or a user of a vehicle regarding approved parts, because this provides the intended result of providing sought after information that is important to an owner who would lie to review a repair shop. By reviewing feedback as suggested by Noplos (see [1:15]), the owner is made aware of information relevant to the shop.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yezersky, in view of NPL document CarFax Vehicle History Report, in view of Schmitz, in view of Noplos, further in view of Sethi, (US 2016/0078403).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yezersky, NPL document CarFax Vehicle History Report, Schmitz, and Noplos discloses all the limitations of claim 2, above.
Not disclosed is an interactive blog, connecting the technicians with other certified technicians to provide guidance on automotive matters.
However, Sethi discloses a parts procurement system and teaches providing video content, such as blogs, to assist technicians during repair of a vehicle. See [0052].
It would have been obvious to provide a blog for repairs per the method of Sethi, within Yezersky’s method for communicating with a vehicle repair facility or a user of a vehicle regarding approved parts, because this provides a know method to share information, particularly about vehicle repairs. The ubiquitous devices able to work with video content makes this data easily accessible and useful. See Sethi [0052].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yezersky, NPL document CarFax Vehicle History Report, Schmitz, Noplos, and Sethi, discloses all the limitations of claim 3, above.
Further disclosed by Yezersky is an enhanced platform provided by blockchain database, see [0041]; noting that enhanced within the instant application is defined as being provided by “the power of blockchain”. See Specification page 17. Thus, Yezersky’s utilization of blockchain is deemed to disclose an enhanced platform.
Not disclosed within Yezersky is accident and insurance history of all services and maintenance preformed on the car which is associated with the VIN number of one of vehicles in the database and records information as the vehicle history.
However, the NPL document CarFax Vehicle History Report discloses a platform (Carfax.com) that allows users to obtain service and maintenance records relating to vehicles based on the VIN as well as accident and insurance information.
It would have been obvious to collect accident and insurance data based on a vehicle’s VIN as disclosed within the CarFax Vehicle History Report, and use this data within Yezersky’s method for communicating with a vehicle repair facility or a user of a vehicle regarding approved parts, because this provides the intended result of much pertinent data about a vehicle being available at one place for the public to obtain the most critical information before making an important, impactful financial decision regarding an expensive asset. The CarFax web app alludes to this benefit of providing trusted information that helps millions of people shop, buy, service and sell cars.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yezersky, in view of NPL document CarFax Vehicle History Report, in view of Schmitz, in view of Noplos, further in view of Trapp (US 2008/0312988).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yezersky, NPL document CarFax Vehicle History Report, Schmitz, and Noplos, discloses all the limitations of claim 6, above.
Not disclosed is a rating mechanism providing the owner a platform to rate the service shops based on parts usage, the number of certified employees, and overall customer experience.
However, Trapp discloses a method for rating a business (a collision repair shop) based on weighted metrics. Trapp suggests using number of employees, [0022], and certifications, [0039]; usage of parts, [0025]; and customer satisfaction (experience), [0024].
It would have been obvious to provide a rating mechanism per Trapp, and use this method within Yezersky’s method for communicating with a vehicle repair facility or a user of a vehicle regarding approved parts, because this provides the intended result of benchmarking against similar shops, as discussed at [0003-0006].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bayer discloses a method for generating information relating to histories for a plurality of vehicles. Gardiner discusses encrypted data for vehicle service scheduling and dispatch.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629