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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 04/01/26 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a non-transitory computer readable medium, a method, and system; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of certifying pre-owned vehicles (and other equipment/devices) for resale.
For claim 1, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
receiving a vehicle identification number (VIN) or vehicle identifier;
checking the VIN or vehicle identifier for eligibility of the vehicle to participate in a certified pre-owned program;
wherein if the VIN or vehicle identifier is eligible to participate in the certified pre-owned program:
receiving a vehicle history report (VHR) from one or more vehicle history reporting agencies related to the VIN or vehicle identifier;
analyzing the VHR for eligibility of the vehicle to participate in a certified pre-owned program;
wherein if the VHR renders the vehicle eligible to participate in the certified pre-owned program:
generating inspection forms, certification checklists inclusive of inspection and reconditioning required on the vehicle, or a combination thereof that are populated with items specific to the VIN or vehicle identifier and certification program requirements;
generating a certification based on user generated responses to the inspection forms, certification checklists inclusive of inspection and reconditioning required on the vehicle, or a combination thereof;
provides a plurality of user selectable sections, where at least one of the plurality of selectable sections when selected provides real time information as to at least one of: open inspections, completed inspections, or a combination thereof, the information provided in one of at least two visual forms
For claims 8, and that is applicable to claim 15 that has a similar claim scope, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
receiving a stakeholder’s credentials for login;
receiving a vehicle identification number (VIN) ,
checking the VIN for eligibility of the vehicle to participate in a certified pre-owned program;
wherein if the VIN is eligible to participate in the certified pre-owned program:
receiving a vehicle history report (VHR) from one or more vehicle history reporting agencies related to the VIN;
analyzing the VHR for eligibility of the vehicle to participate in a certified pre-owned program; wherein if the VHR renders the vehicle eligible to participate in the certified pre-owned program:
generating inspection forms and certification checklists inclusive of inspection and reconditioning required on the vehicle that are automatically populated with only items specific to the VIN and certification program requirements;
receiving, in response to prompts, user generated responses input to the inspection forms;
sending the VIN to a database of certified pre-owned vehicles and listing the vehicle in an inventory of certified pre-owned vehicles;
generating a certification based on the user generated responses to the inspection forms;
providing a plurality of user selectable sections, where at least one of the plurality of selectable sections when selected provides real time information as to at least one of: open inspections and completed inspections, the real time information provided in one of at least two visual forms
The above limitations are reciting a method of certifying pre-owned vehicles (and other equipment/devices) for resale. The vehicle industry and the retail sales industry (car dealerships) is known to conduct a vehicle certification to determine if the vehicle is able to be sold or if the vehicle has to go to a commercial auction. As is recognized in the specification, certified pre-owned (CPO) vehicles and their inspection is a type of used car that is commonly sold by car dealers. This has been done for decades in the car industry and by car dealerships specifically. The act of inspecting a vehicle to determine if it can be certified as a CPO vehicle is a human activity because prior to computers that is how a CPO was processed. It was done by a service technician or other person inspecting the vehicle and generating a decision on whether or not to certify the vehicle as a CPO or if they should consider sending the car to the auction house (because it is not in good enough condition to put on the lot to be sold as a CPO vehicle). The claimed invention is reciting a commercial practice that is also considered to be a fundamental economic practice, which is the certification of a pre-owned vehicles for resale purposes. This represents a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea.
The additional elements of claim 1 are considered to be the elements of:
a non-transitory computer readable medium, generating a first graphical user interface (GUI) on a device, the use of the GUI for some of the claimed steps, generating a second GUI, reciting that the forms are “on screen” (implies computer implementation using a screen), and calling the certification a digital certification.
Claim 8 recites additional elements of:
providing a technician graphical user interface (GUI) on a first portable computing device; use of the GUI for some of the claimed steps, generating a login page on a display of the first portable computing device; calling the forms on screen inspection forms. Also claimed is the administrator GUI that provides the information that is part of the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites additional elements of:
a server with a database connected to a network to one or more computing devices, memory storing instructions to execute the steps that define the abstract idea, in addition to the GUI, digital certification, calling the forms “on screen forms”, as was addressed for claim 8. Claim 15 also recites a sales employee GUI and the administrator GUI, where the sales employee GUI is the same as the technical GUI in claim 8, they are just called different names in different claims.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device(s) with a processor and memory that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing devices and using generically recited user interfaces to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer connected via a network such as the Internet (the web) and that has an interface of some kind, all generically recited. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by use of a computing device(s) with a processor and memory that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing devices and using generically recited user interfaces to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to step 2B in this regard so no further comments are necessary. This is consistent with the PEG found in the MPEP 2106.
The claims 1, 8, 15, do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 2-4, 9-11, 16-18, the applicant is reciting more about the same abstract idea of claim 1. Claiming that the user responses are stored in a database, the generation of reports based on statistical analysis, and providing password protected reports that are only available to authorized personnel, are elements that serve to define the abstract idea of the claims. No further additional elements have been claimed beyond that which is recited in claim 1. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 5, reciting that the first or second GUI generate on screen prompts that are touch screen activated is considered to be an additional element that is claiming the use of a touchscreen. A touchscreen is a conventional part of a computer such as a laptop and is not providing for anything more than a general link to computer implementation for providing prompts to a user using a touchscreen display. This is a general instruction for one to use a computer with a touchscreen display and does not provide for integration or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not eligible.
For claim 6, the receiving of the responses into an inspection form or checklist and providing access to the VHR and the responses is a further embellishment of the abstract idea of the claims. This is just the receipt of data from a technician inspecting a vehicle and the providing of the VHR and responses to another user. This is part of the abstract idea. The claimed use of screen prompts and the use of the technical GUI have been treated in the same manner that was set forth for claim 1 and do not provide for integration or significantly more. The claim is not eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For claims 7, 14, 20, the claimed sign-off to approve the vehicle inspection or certification is considered to be part of the abstract idea. This is what a manager does when they approve the inspection or certification by signing a paper form. The claimed use of the screens has been treated in the same manner that was set forth for claim 1, to which the applicant is referred. This does not define more than an instruction for one to use a computer with a screen for a display to practice the abstract idea and does not provide for integration or significantly more. This claim is not eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For claim 12, reciting that the GUIs are on two different devices is claiming connected devices as being used for the abstract idea. This was addressed above for claims 1, 8, 15 as far as the use of two computers connected via a network, that each have a GUI does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer connected via a network such as the Internet (the web) and that has an interface of some kind, all generically recited. This does not amount to integration or significantly more. The claim is not eligible.
For claim 13, the types of inspection or items to be inspected that are claimed are further defining the abstract idea of the claims. Inspecting a vehicle includes inspecting the rear interior and exterior and the front, etc.. No further additional element has been recited for consideration. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 19, the display of at least a portion of the generated data is considered to be reciting more about the abstract idea. This is just providing information to another. This is part of the abstract idea. The recitation to the sales consultation GUI is taken as a further instruction for one to practice the abstract idea using generic computers. The sales consultation GUI has been treated in the same manner as the technician GUI, both of which are taken as mere instructions for one to practice the abstract idea using a computer with a GUI as a tool to execute the abstract idea. The claims does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to arguments
The double patenting rejection has been overcome by the filing of a Terminal Disclaimer. The Terminal Disclaimer has been approved.
The remarks on page 9 of the reply indicate that the specification has been amended. The examiner notes that the specification has not been amended in the response of 04/01/26. It is not clear what the comment is referring to because there is no specification amendment of record in the most recent reply.
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. The applicant argues on pages 9-10 that the claims have been amended to recite the providing of use selectable options that when selected will provide real time information as to open inspections or completed inspections. This is not persuasive because the argued element is considered to be part of the abstract idea. Providing options to a user to select from can be done with no technology at all and is something that serves to define part of the abstract idea. As to the argument that the claimed invention provides for an improvement in the field of certified pre-owned vehicle inspection processes, this is not persuasive. The CPO inspection process that is argued and claimed is what defines the abstract idea. The fact that the claimed invention streamlines the process of inspecting a vehicle, eliminates clerical errors (broadly argued, not linked to any given limitation), avoids wasted time (unclear what claim element this refers to), and provides real time information. The additional elements of the claims recite computer implementation of the abstract idea, such as via the a non-transitory computer readable medium, generating a first graphical user interface (GUI) on a device, the use of the GUI for some of the claimed steps, generating a second GUI, reciting that the forms are “on screen” (implies computer implementation using a screen), and calling the certification a digital certification. The fact that use of a computer allows for something to be streamlined and made more efficient and faster with less errors is a natural result of using a computer to perform the abstract idea. Also, the result of the claim does not serve to improve any of the claimed technology such that the claims would be considered as providing an improvement to technology. The field of evaluating a vehicle for a certified pre-owned vehicle program is not technology.
On pages 10-1 the applicant argues that the claims do not set forth or describe an abstract idea. The applicant argues that the claims use a specialized GUI that receives user interactions which is enough to remove the claims from being an abstract idea. This is not persuasive. To start with, the additional elements of the claims that is reciting the GUI is an additional element that is analyzed at the 2nd prong and step 2B. At step 2A, when deciding on whether or not a claim recites an abstract idea (sets forth or describes), the mere presence of the GUI in the claim does not preclude a finding that an abstract idea has been recited at step 2A. The argument is not persuasive for this reason.
The applicant argues on page 10 of the reply that the claimed system and method has never been used and could not be performed in such an automatic manner by a human being the claimed system requires physical objects (unclear that this refers to other than the additional elements that are claiming computer implementation of the abstract idea). Also, novelty and non-obviousness over prior art does not equate to eligibility and is not a factor that is considered when making an eligibility determination. Even innovative and novel and non-obvious abstract ideas are still abstract ideas.
The citation to Ex parte Scott is noted but is not persuasive. The claimed invention is not using an interface to control the presentation of information in a display. At most the claims recite that real time information is displayed via the GUI, but that is mere data display that does not rise to the level of reciting a particular tool for data display that recites structure to a GUI and the associated functionality that it provides to a user. The argument that the claims are eligible because they recite tangible devices such as portable computing devices to receive user input, and that processes the inputs to present data on a GUI is not persuasive. The argued elements are nothing more than a general instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea. No specialized interface is recited that would render the claims eligible.
On page 12 the applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application. The applicant argues that the claims recite how tangible devices and physical acts of the present invention facilitate functional computer technology related improvements. It is not clear what the applicant is arguing when they refer to functional computer “related” improvements. An improvement to a certified pre-owned inspection process is not technology. The additional elements of the claims that represent technology are not being improved in any manner. The claimed invention is evaluating a vehicle to particular in a CPO program, and is displaying real time information as to open or closed inspections upon a user selection an option. The result of the claim does not improve technology and does not improve the argued “functional computer related” technology. At best the claim is merely automating the process of evaluating a vehicle for a CPO program that can otherwise be performed manually by people. The mere automation of the CPO process to obtain the benefits that moder day computers provide (faster, more efficient, less error prone than a human) is not an improvement to technology that renders the claims eligible. The additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device(s) with a processor and memory that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea. The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing devices and using generically recited user interfaces to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer connected via a network such as the Internet (the web) and that has an interface. The claims do not result in an improvement to technology as has been argued. The traversal is not persuasive and the 35 USC 101 rejection is being 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 DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights