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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 are pending and presented for examination.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Device for Notifying User of Target Vehicle Product.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites acquir[ing] information on one or more products, determin[ing] whether the product satisfies a first condition, based on an initial specification of a vehicle owned by a user, determin[ing] whether the product satisfies a second condition, based on a specification change history of the vehicle, determin[ing] whether the product satisfies a third condition, based on individual information on the user, identif[ing] each of the products that satisfy all of the first condition, the second condition, and the third condition as a target product, and notif[ing] the user of information on the identified target product. The limitations above are processes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall into the “metal processes” grouping of abstract ideas—"concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)”, see MPEP 2106.04(a) (2) (III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of an “information processing device comprising a control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to” (claim 1) are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and merely uses the computer as a tool to practice the judicial exception Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements are still mere instructions to implement the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented above. The claim as a whole describes how to apply the concept of recommending a vehicle product using an “information processing device comprising a control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to”, which are generic computer components to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other judicial exception on a computer, which do not provide inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-5 recite additional details that further narrow the previously recited abstract idea. There are no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application; nor are there additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, even when viewed in combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sethi et al (US 2016/0078403).
As per claim 1, Sethi et al discloses an information processing device comprising a control unit, wherein the control unit ([0021]; Fig. 6) is configured to
acquire information on one or more products ([0007-0011]; [0031]; [0034]; access parts database, searches the Internet; retrieves pricing/availability and product info),
determine whether the product satisfies a first condition, based on an initial specification of a vehicle owned by a user ([0029], the recommendation and procurement application 102 can use the received specific information about the automobile 106, such as the year, make, model condition, etc., to sort and/or filter lists of parts compatible with the vehicle 106 and recommend parts),
determine whether the product satisfies a second condition, based on a specification change history of the vehicle ([0009], The selected part and the VIN of the vehicle can be correlated automatically with the one or more processors. The weighting factor associated with the compatible parts can be adjusted based upon the selected part and the VIN of the vehicle that are correlated; [0011], the selected part, the VIN of the vehicle and the maintenance information that are correlated into aggregated data; and analyze the aggregated data to determine baseline cost for a repair associated with the maintenance information; [0047], Based on such data, the system 100 can over time adjust the behavior of the system 100. In one example, the system assigns a “weighting factor” to parts relative to specific vehicles that is factored in when the system 100 generates a list of recommended parts for vehicles; [0056], By storing such repair history of a specific vehicle, the system 100 can provide such historical data to the vehicle owner and to the auto mechanic that is analyzing the vehicle for new repair or maintenance work),
determine whether the product satisfies a third condition, based on individual information on the user ([0032] In one example, recommendation and procurement application 102 can further customize or refine the recommended parts based on the registered customer's stored preferences, price category preference, or purchase history; [0058] the system 100 can be arranged to incorporate the system user or vehicle owner's preferences when recommending parts. The use of such preferences customize the parts recommendations algorithms. The algorithms can generally take into consideration specific brand, product, price point, delivery time, etc. preferences of a repair shop. User preferences can also provide authority level settings for multiple users within a given shop amongst other features) ,
identify each of the products that satisfy all of the first condition, the second condition, and the third condition as a target product([0009], The VIN of the vehicle and the vehicle identification information associated with the parts data can be compared, automatically with one or more processors, to identify compatible parts from the parts data. A recommended part can be recommended from the compatible parts based upon the maintenance information and the weighting factor associated with the compatible parts. [0039-0047], Recommendation and procurement application 102 also includes parts recommendation logic 206 to generate a parts catalog of all parts compatible with a specific vehicle 106 based on the vehicle VIN… parts recommendation logic 206 can identify all parts in parts database 216 that are compatible with the specific vehicle … The parts recommendation logic 206 can further be configured to recommend one or more subsets of the parts catalog based on information such as the automobile year, make, model, and condition of the vehicle, for example, and based on the diagnostic codes received or retrieved from the vehicle… the parts recommendation logic 206 can use one or more recommendation rules defined in recommendation rules database 212 to filter the identified parts and to recommend to a technician 110 one or more parts that can be used for the specific automobile having a given year, make, model, condition…the parts recommendation logic 206 further filters identified parts based on a registered user's or technician's stored preferences… system 100 is capable of “learning” by gathering and analyzing historic procurement data of users of the system 100. …the system 100 can track the parts recommended by parts recommendation logic 206 and also tracks the parts that are ultimately procured by technicians… system 100 can over time adjust the behavior of the system 100. … assigns a “weighting factor” to parts relative to specific vehicles that is factored in when the system 100 generates a list of recommended parts for vehicles…weights determine if a part will be recommended for a particular vehicle, where it will fall in any sorting of compatible parts, whether it is filtered out of a list under certain conditions, search criteria…the weight for a part can increase or decrease over time based on how the users of the system 100 actually procure a part when recommended or based on general trends in such procurement. Thus, a custom parts catalog generated for a particular VIN can be refined over time to increase accuracy based on actual use of the system 100 by technicians 110), and
notify the user of information on the identified target product ([0010], The recommended parts can be presented upon the display).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sethi et al (US 2016/0078403) in view of Liu et al (US 2014/0279263).
As per claim 2, Sethi et al further discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the first condition is a condition that the product is installable in the vehicle with the initial specification ([0029], the recommendation and procurement application 102 can use the received specific information about the automobile 106, such as the year, make, model condition, etc., to sort and/or filter lists of parts compatible with the vehicle 106 and recommend parts) , and
the second condition is a condition that the product is installable in the vehicle with a latest specification identified from the specification change history ([0009], The selected part and the VIN of the vehicle can be correlated automatically with the one or more processors. The weighting factor associated with the compatible parts can be adjusted based upon the selected part and the VIN of the vehicle that are correlated; [0011], the selected part, the VIN of the vehicle and the maintenance information that are correlated into aggregated data; and analyze the aggregated data to determine baseline cost for a repair associated with the maintenance information).
Sethi et al does not disclose, however Liu et al discloses the third condition is a condition that product information on the product has not been viewed by the user ([0022; 0026; 0028]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Sethi et al to include recommending previously not viewed items, as in Lui et al, to better tailor recommendations to a particular consumer’s specific interest and concerns (Lui, [0006]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sethi et al (US 2016/0078403) in view of Lora et al (WO 2018/005834).
As per claim 3, Sethi discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to, when there are a plurality of vehicles, identify the target product for each of the vehicles [0011]. Sethi does not, however Lora et al discloses the user owns the vehicles and aggregate information on all of the target products identified for the vehicles and notify the user of the aggregated information [006, 025-027; 050-051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Sethi et al to include aggregated products for a plurality of vehicle, as in Lora et al, to maintain vehicle health (Lora, 002-003).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sethi et al (US 2016/0078403) in view of Dishneau et al (US 8,538,807)
As per claim 4, Sethi does not disclose, however Dishneau et al discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to determine when to notify the user of the information on the target product, based on a product purchase history of the user identified from the individual information (col 2, limes 13-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Sethi et al to include determining when to notify the user of a product based on a product purchase history, as in Disheau et al, to save time, save money or add convenience to the user’s shopping tasks (Dishneau, col 2, lines 7-12).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sethi et al (US 2016/0078403) in view of Argue et al (US 10,002,378).
As per claim 5, Sethi further discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to further acquire status information indicating a production status or inventory status of the target product, an availability status of an installer of the target product, or both the production status or inventory status and the availability status (0030; 0050), Sethi does not disclose, however Argue et al discloses determine when to notify the user of the information on the target product, based on the status information ([0018], [0019], [0021], [0030-0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Sethi et al to include determining when to notify a user based on status information, as in Argue etal, for user convenience (Argue , [0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNON S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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.
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.
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628