821DETAILED 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 and 16, and 9-15 in the reply filed on April 3, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Examiner has failed to establish serious burden because there is overlapping search between groups”. This is not found persuasive because, as noted in the Restriction Requirement, the groups are assigned to different search classes (e.g., G06Q10/20 and G07C5/0816). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL
Status of the Specification and Claims
A preliminary amendment was filed on November 12, 2024 to amend the specification to include the description of Figures 17 and 18. No new matter was added.
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a restriction requirement dated October 7, 2025. In the Response submitted on April 3, 2026, claims 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration, and claims 1-16 are subject to the non-final rejection below.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-8 and 16 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), and claims 9-15 are directed to a computing system comprising a processor (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-16 all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1 and 9 recite storing an objective function for prioritizing vehicle availability and vehicle maintenance cost reduction; receiving vehicle telematics data for a vehicle; generating a vehicle service event forecast at least partially based on the vehicle telematics data; and scheduling a vehicle service event for the vehicle related to the vehicle telematics data at least partially based on the vehicle service event forecast and the objective function.
The limitations recited above recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., commercial interactions, following rules or instructions). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The mere recitation of generic computer components (i) a computer implemented method (claim 1), and (ii) a computing system for objective-based scheduling of vehicle servicing, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing machine-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform actions (claim 9), and does not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 9 as a whole merely recite the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of (i) a computer implemented method (claim 1), and (ii) a computing system for objective-based scheduling of vehicle servicing, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing machine-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform actions (claim 9).
The additional elements (i) and (ii) are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, and 10-15 merely recites details that narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claims 1 and 9, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-8 and 10-15 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Claim 16 recites the additional element of a non-transitory machine-readable medium having tangibly stored thereon executable instructions for execution by one or more processors, wherein the executable instructions, in response to execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 1, which are recited at a high-level of generality such that when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than “apply it”, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 16 is ineligible.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0326767 to Mendes (hereinafter “Mendes”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0245631 to Dang et al. (hereinafter “Dang”).
In regard to claim 1, Mendes discloses receiving vehicle telematics data for a vehicle (Para. 114) (Vehicle monitoring by the telematic device 28 provides…vehicle data to the platforms… Shared vehicle data also provides indications towards vehicle status and maintenance. Shared vehicle data includes speed data, location data, accelerometer data, engine data, fluid level data (oil, coolant, washer fluid) and energy levels. Energy levels may be battery power, fuel level or a combination of both (i.e., vehicle telematics data for a vehicle).)
Mendes discloses generating a vehicle service event forecast at least partially based on the vehicle telematics data (Para. 154) (…maintenance may be determined when fluid levels are low or if the remaining energy in a vehicle 22 is to[o] low when compared to the needs of the reservation data such as distance required (i.e., generating a vehicle service event forecast). If a determination for maintenance is required, schedule the maintenance event and corresponding vehicle share reservation)
Mendes discloses scheduling a vehicle service event for the vehicle related to the vehicle telematics data at least partially based on the vehicle service event forecast (Para. 154) (…maintenance may be determined when fluid levels are low or if the remaining energy in a vehicle 22 is to[o] low (i.e., related to the vehicle telematics data) when compared to the needs of the reservation data such as distance required (i.e., based at least partially on the vehicle service event forecast). If a determination for maintenance is required, schedule the maintenance event and corresponding vehicle share reservation (i.e., scheduling a vehicle service event for the vehicle.)
Mendes does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Dang teaches storing an objective function for prioritizing vehicle availability and vehicle maintenance cost reduction; and the vehicle service event is scheduled based on the objective function (Paras. 3, 31-32; 69) (…objectives include determining a maintenance schedule for a fleet to support a mission and minimizing the maintenance cost (i.e., prioritize vehicle maintenance cost; and the vehicle service event is scheduled based on the objective function)… Aircraft on a waiting list cannot execute any mission or receive maintenance during that time, which is a situation that should be minimized (i.e., prioritize vehicle availability)…)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the objectives of Dang with the scheduling of Mendes in order to “maximize operational effectiveness” (See Para. 3 of Dang).
In regard to claim 9, Mendes discloses the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
Mendes does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Dang teaches one or more processors; and a memory storing machine-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform a method (Para. 69; claim 8)
Mendes does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Dang teaches storing an objective function for prioritizing vehicle availability and vehicle maintenance cost reduction; and the vehicle service event is scheduled based on the objective function (Paras. 3, 31-32; 69) (…objectives include determining a maintenance schedule for a fleet to support a mission and minimizing the maintenance cost (i.e., prioritize vehicle maintenance cost; and the vehicle service event is scheduled based on the objective function)… Aircraft on a waiting list cannot execute any mission or receive maintenance during that time, which is a situation that should be minimized (i.e., prioritize vehicle availability)…)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the objectives of Dang with the scheduling of Mendes in order to “maximize operational effectiveness” (See Para. 3 of Dang).
In regard to claims 2 and 10, Mendes discloses wherein the vehicle telematics data includes one or more fault code events corresponding to one or more fault codes (Para. 156) (Vehicle share maintenance data contains...vehicle share data. For example, the vehicle share data includes engine data such as fault codes, trouble codes (i.e., one or more fault code events corresponding to one or more fault codes).)
In regard to claim 3, Mendes discloses wherein the vehicle telematics data includes metrics indicative of wear of one or more components of the vehicle (Para. 159) (The vehicle share maintenance data includes vehicle share data in the form of oil level, washer level, coolant level, or tire pressure (i.e., metrics indicative of wear of one or more components of the vehicle).)
In regard to claim 4, Mendes discloses wherein the vehicle telematics data includes battery health data corresponding to a health state of a battery of the vehicle (Para. 114) (Shared vehicle data also provides indications towards vehicle status and maintenance. Shared vehicle data includes…energy levels. Energy levels may be battery power, fuel level or a combination of both (i.e., a health state of a battery of the vehicle).)
In regard to claim 11, Mendes discloses wherein the vehicle telematics data includes at least one of: metrics indicative of wear of one or more components of the vehicle; and battery health data corresponding to a health state of a battery of the vehicle (Paras. 114 and 159) (The vehicle share maintenance data includes vehicle share data in the form of oil level, washer level, coolant level, or tire pressure (i.e., metrics indicative of wear of one or more components of the vehicle)…Shared vehicle data also provides indications towards vehicle status and maintenance. Shared vehicle data includes…energy levels. Energy levels may be battery power, fuel level or a combination of both (i.e., a health state of a battery of the vehicle).)
In regard to claims 5 and 12, Mendes does not explicitly disclose or teach, however Dang teaches wherein the objective function is a weighted function of cost over time (Para. 31) ([The RL agent's objectives include determining a maintenance schedule for a fleet to support a mission and minimizing the maintenance cost (i.e., weighted function of cost. It is important to perform the maintenance at the right time. If the maintenance is not performed in time, unexpected aircraft failures may appear during a mission, which introduces additional risks to the mission. If preventive maintenance is performed too frequently, the maintenance costs would be high (i.e., over time), and there may not be sufficient resources to accommodate maintenance tasks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the objectives of Dang with the scheduling of Mendes in order to “maximize operational effectiveness” (See Para. 3 of Dang).
In regard to claim 16, Mendes does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Dang teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium having tangibly stored thereon executable instructions for execution by one or more processors, wherein the executable instructions, in response to execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method (of claim 1) (Para. 7; Claim 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the non-transitory machine-readable medium of Dang with the system of Mendes in order to provide an efficient system.
Claims 6-8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendes in view of Dang, as applied to claims 1 and 9, and further in view of WIPO WO 2024/201449 to Natan et al. (hereinafter “Natan”).
In regard to claims 6 and 13, as discussed above Mendes discloses one or more issues identified in the vehicle telematics data (Para. 32) (vehicle data provides indications of vehicle use ….vehicle use indicates maintenance and the shared vehicle data is selected from the group of…oil level data).
Mendes in view of Dang does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Natan teaches wherein the scheduling includes adjusting a scheduled service event for one or more issues identified in the vehicle telematics data (Page. 22, line 14-17) (… when the initiated 230 control operation includes the automatic scheduling of a service appointment for the vehicle, to repair a mechanical issue, the control operation may further include a scheduling (i.e., adjusting a scheduled service event) adjusting a scheduled service event of an oil change (i.e., issues identified in the vehicle telematics data) that would otherwise be scheduled to a later day, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the scheduling of Natan with the system of Mendes in view of Dang in order to provide a more efficient system of scheduling.
In regard to claims 7 and 14, Mendes in view of Dang does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Natan teaches wherein a check of a component associated with the issue is scheduled for the scheduled service event. (Page. 22, line 14-17) (… when the initiated 230 control operation includes the automatic scheduling of a service appointment for the vehicle, to repair a mechanical issue, the control operation may further include a scheduling (i.e., scheduled for the scheduled service event) adjusting a scheduled service event of an oil change (i.e., a check of a component associated with the issue) that would otherwise be scheduled to a later day, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the scheduling of Natan with the system of Mendes in view of Dang in order to provide a more efficient system of scheduling.
In regard to claims 8 and 15, Mendes in view of Dang does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Natan teaches wherein the scheduled service event is scheduled earlier or later (Page. 22, line 14-17) (… when the initiated 230 control operation includes the automatic scheduling of a service appointment for the vehicle, to repair a mechanical issue, the control operation may further include a scheduling adjusting a scheduled service event of an oil change that would otherwise be scheduled to a later day (i.e., scheduled earlier).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the scheduling of Natan with the system of Mendes in view of Dang in order to provide a more efficient system of scheduling
Prior Art
The following prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0317676 to Reaume (hereinafter “Reaume”). Reaume discloses automatically scheduling maintenance of equipment by predicting (or at least estimating) a time of failure of a component of equipment and determining an optimal time to perform a maintenance event, which may include pre-emptive maintenance to prevent failure of the component and/or preventive/scheduled maintenance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is 571-270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9:30 AM – 6:30 PM.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on Monday – Friday at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
