DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to papers filed on 8/19/2025.
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 .
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while the claims herein are directed to a method and/or system, which could be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes), the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, this claims recites, in part, set a period of time from an order date of the vehicle to a scheduled delivery date of the vehicle as a target period; receive login information including user identification information and use authentication information as part of a login process; authenticate the purchaser based on the login information; transmit web page data of a service that provides information on the vehicle upon successful authentication of the purchaser; determine whether a timing of the login process is within the target period, and whether a time from a last login process to the present login process is equal to or longer than a predetermined time interval, wherein an incentive is provided to the purchaser in response to the determination that the timing of the login process is within the target period, and that the time from the last login process to the present login process is equal to or longer than the predetermined time interval, the incentive including a coupon for discounts or a coupon exchangeable for goods, and the incentive is displayed to the purchaser.
The limitations, as drafted and detailed above, recites providing an incentive for performance of an activity, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and specifically commercial activities including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of a user terminal operated by a purchaser of a vehicle, the user terminal including a display (claim 1), and information processing device including a processor; and a memory storing executable instructions (claim 1). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of setting, receiving, authenticating, transmitting, and determining) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There are no additional functional limitations to be considered under prong two.
Accordingly, the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) 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).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a user terminal operated by a purchaser of a vehicle, the user terminal including a display (claim 1), and information processing device including a processor; and a memory storing executable instructions (claim 1) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. 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.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent- eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat' l Ass' n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computer (see Applicant specification Paragraph 0013); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
The dependent claims 2, 3, and 5 appear to merely limit extending of the target period, a higher incentive during an extended period, and the coupon being useable at a dealer, and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The a user terminal operated by a purchaser of a vehicle, the user terminal including a display (claim 1), and information processing device including a processor; and a memory storing executable instructions (claim 1) are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of setting, receiving, authenticating, transmitting, and determining, all common to electronics and computer systems.
Applicant's specification does not provide any indication that the a user terminal operated by a purchaser of a vehicle, the user terminal including a display (claim 1), and information processing device including a processor; and a memory storing executable instructions (claim 1) are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-3 and 5 are not patent eligible.
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, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaoka (U.S. Pub No. 2003/0120369) in view of Walker (U.S. Pub No. 2007/0124209).
Regarding claim 1, Takaoka teaches a user terminal operated by a purchaser of a vehicle, the user terminal including a display (Paragraph 0131); and an information processing device including a processor and a memory storing executable instructions that cause the processor to set a period of time from an order date of the vehicle to a scheduled delivery date of the vehicle as a target period (Paragraphs 0018, 0116, 0272, 0274, 0282); receive login information including user identification information and use authentication information from the user terminal as part of a login process initiated at the user terminal (Paragraph 0215); authenticate the purchaser based on the login information received from the user terminal (Paragraph 0307, process of checking login and password to allow access is authentication); transmit web page data of a service that provides information on the vehicle to the user terminal upon successful authentication of the purchaser (Paragraphs 0131, 0133, 0138); determine whether a timing of the login process is within the target period (Paragraphs 0018, 0116, 0272, 0274, 0282), wherein an incentive is provided to the purchaser in response to the determination that the timing of the login process is within the target period (Paragraphs 0018, 0116, 0272, 0274, 0282, incentive given to the purchaser is the information on the status of the vehicle before shipping), and the incentive is displayed to the purchaser on the display of the user terminal (Paragraphs 0018, 0116, 0272, 0274, 0282, incentive given to the purchaser is the information on the status of the vehicle before shipping).
Takaoka does not appear to specify determining whether a time from a last login process to the present login process is equal to or longer than a predetermined time interval, wherein an incentive is provided to the purchaser in response to the determination that the time from the last login process to the present login process is equal to or longer than the predetermined time interval, the incentive including a coupon for discounts or a coupon exchangeable for goods. However, Walker teaches determining whether a time from a last visit to the present visit is equal to or longer than a predetermined time interval, wherein an incentive is provided to the purchaser in response to the determination that the time from the visit to the present visit is equal to or longer than the predetermined time interval (Paragraph 0087, a store visit or purchase in which a user is identified via user information is equivalent to a visit or login to a website), the incentive including a coupon for discounts or a coupon exchangeable for goods (Paragraph 0094). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a coupon based on a time period between visits since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Takaoka teaches to extend the target period when a delivery of the vehicle is delayed past the scheduled delivery date (Paragraphs 0018, 0116, the target period is the time in which the customer can check the status, which is until the vehicle is delivered, and if that time is delayed, the window is naturally extended).
Regarding claim 5, Takaoka does not appear to specify the incentive includes a coupon usable at a dealer of the vehicle. However, Walker teaches the incentive includes a coupon usable at a dealer of products (Paragraph 0094). Vehicles as products, and dealers of vehicle products (dealerships) have been old and well known long before the filing of Applicant’s invention. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use coupons for any product, including vehicles, as an incentive, as coupons for desired products, like vehicles, are effective ways to get consumers to do things as desired.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaoka (U.S. Pub No. 2003/0120369) in view of Walker (U.S. Pub No. 2007/0124209), and further in view of Seto (U.S. Pub No. 2022/0284464).
Regarding claim 3, Takaoka does not appear to specify the incentive given to the user is increased when the purchaser logs in the service after the target period has been extended. However, Seto teaches the incentive given to the user is increased when the purchaser logs in the service after the target period has been extended (Paragraphs 0083-0084, administrator may extend the time period and extend the incentive). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide varying incentives for varying time periods since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “the claimed subject not only requires interaction between physical components such as the recited terminal and information processing device, and, particularly, the notification of the purchaser of the provided incentive by displaying the incentive of the display of the user terminal. Therefore, the claimed subject matter provides a system that enhances the purchaser's anticipation of the delivery of the purchaser’s vehicle”. However, the physical components are nothing more than generic computer components that function no differently than general purpose computers would function. Therefore, the additional elements do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, not only is there no guarantee that the purchaser’s anticipation of a delivery would be enhanced (this would be user-dependent, and would vary based on a user’s personality and disposition), but the enhancing of a user experience through delivery of an incentive is directly tied to the abstract idea. In the SAP decision (See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), the courts found that an improvement made to the abstract idea is not patent eligible. SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
Applicant’s arguments of the prior art rejections are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
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 MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
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, WASEEM ASHRAF can be reached at (571) 270-3948. 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.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621