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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received on 8/22/2025.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 are currently pending. Claims 21-22 are new. Claims 7 and 15 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to the title overcome objection, therefore its withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections made under 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the features of the amended claims are integrated into a practical application” because it improves user convenience when purchasing options. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that improving user convenience is merely abstract. “improving a user's experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality." Customedia Technologies v. Dish Network, 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020). See also Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (the purported improvement in user experience in processing loads did not "improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem.") Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections made under 102/103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
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 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-6, 8-12 and 21-22 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), Claims 13-14,16-20 are directed to a terminal device ( i.e., machine). Therefore, Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 substantially recites receiving option information indicating at least one of the vehicle options; display the at least one of the vehicle options; receiving an input of one or more selected options selected by a user from the at least one of the vehicle options; selection information indicating the one or more selected options; receiving delivery timing information indicating at least one delivery timing determined based on a number of days that is a period added to a standard delivery timing when each option indicated by the selection information is selected; and display the at least one delivery timing together with the one or more selected options. Claims 5 and 13 recite similar limitations.
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and commercial or legal interactions or sales activities and following rules or instructions) because the claims recite steps of collecting, analyzing and outputting the data. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 5, and 13 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The independent claims recite the additional elements: (i) executed by a terminal device, an input unit, an output unit, a communication unit, and a controller, an information processing device, outputting, transmitting, and (ii) website, which are recited at a high-level of generality (See specification: [0029] The information processing device 10 is a computer installed in a facility such as a data center. The information processing device 10 provides a sales website for vehicles and vehicle options [0030] The terminal device 20 is a mobile device such as a mobile phone, a smartphone, or a tablet, or a PC. The term "PC" is an abbreviation for "personal computer". [0034-41] The functions of the information processing device 10 or the terminal device 20 are implemented by executing a program according to the present embodiment on a processor serving as the control unit 11 or the control unit 21) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (as shown in Fig. 1) , it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (as shown in Fig. 1) , 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: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) linking to a particular technological environment or field of use . The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it”, and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of: (i) executed by a terminal device, an input unit, an output unit, a communication unit, and a controller, an information processing device, outputting, transmitting, and (ii) website, 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 adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented ( i.e., they merely narrow the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea (e.g., using computers and internet) as the independent claims. Claims 21-22 recite “output screen”, which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it”.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement a narrowed abstract idea. They do not add any additional elements not already analyzed and the abstract idea has the same ineligible relationship when viewed in combination as the independent claims do. Claims 21-22 recite “output screen”, that are recited at a high-level of generality (See [0040] The output unit 25 includes at least one output interface. Examples of the output interface include a display and a loudspeaker. Examples of the display include an LCD and an organic EL display )- these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the dependent claims are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 11, 13-14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahara (US6711449B1) in view of Chowdhry (US2017/0255903 A1)
As per claim 1, Miyahara teaches:
A method to be executed by a terminal device including an input unit, an output unit, a communication unit, and a controller, the communication unit being configured to communicate with an information processing device configured to provide information on vehicle options, the method comprising: ( see at least: Col.4 lines 44-65, The production management system 40 receives order information from the order reception management system 10 and replies by providing a delivery date of the ordered vehicle before beginning manufacture. The ordered vehicle is produced by adding options such as aluminum wheels, car audio equipment and other various accessories to the chassis of a vehicle, which is produced by assembling a car body, an engine, and other equipment and parts).
receiving, by the controller, option information from the information processing device via the communication unit, the option information indicating at least one of the vehicle options; outputting, by the controller, the at least one of the vehicle options via the output unit; ( see at least: Fig.1, Col.4 lines 44-65, The production management system 40 [the information processing device] receives order information from the order reception management system 10 [ terminal device] and replies by providing a delivery date of the ordered vehicle before beginning manufacture. The ordered vehicle is produced by adding options such as aluminum wheels, car audio equipment and other various accessories to the chassis of a vehicle, which is produced by assembling a car body, an engine, and other equipment and parts, Col. 7 Lines 24-42,)
receiving, by the controller, an input of one or more selected options selected by a user from the at least one of the vehicle options via the input unit; ( see at least: Fig.1, Col.4 lines 44-65, The production management system 40 receives order information from the order reception management system 10 and replies by providing a delivery date of the ordered vehicle before beginning manufacture. The ordered vehicle is produced by adding options such as aluminum wheels, car audio equipment and other various accessories to the chassis of a vehicle, which is produced by assembling a car body, an engine, and other equipment and parts Col. 7 Lines 24-42, When a vehicle is entered the vehicle name input field, the order receiving section 12 displays the selectable engines, transmissions, models, body colors, and options in respective areas according to the vehicle specifications master DB 20 and the parts information master DB 28. The customer selects desired options from to determine the specifications of the vehicle. In this case, a vehicle type which is selected for the “ordered vehicle” and the desired delivery date and others of the ordered vehicle are designated through the screen. After determining necessary items as above, a “delivery date response” button is clicked to send the entered information as order information to the ordered-vehicle ordering section 14. )
transmitting, by the controller, selection information indicating the one or more selected options to the information processing device via the communication unit; ( see at least: Fig.1, Col.4 lines 44-65, The production management system 40 receives order information from the order reception management system 10 and replies by providing a delivery date of the ordered vehicle before beginning manufacture. The ordered vehicle is produced by adding options such as aluminum wheels, car audio equipment and other various accessories to the chassis of a vehicle, which is produced by assembling a car body, an engine, and other equipment and parts Col.7 Lines 30-40, FIG. 3 shows an example order reception screen. When a vehicle is entered the vehicle name input field, the order receiving section 12 displays the selectable engines, transmissions, models, body colors, and options in respective areas according to the vehicle specifications master DB 20 and the parts information master DB 28. The customer selects desired options from to determine the specifications of the vehicle. In this case, a vehicle type which is selected for the “ordered vehicle” and the desired delivery date and others of the ordered vehicle are designated through the screen. The ordered-vehicle ordering section 14 adds the dealer information for specifying the dealer to the received order information to produce ordering information and transmits it to the production management system 40 of the production plant where the ordered vehicle type is produced (step 103))
receiving, by the controller from the information processing device via the communication unit, delivery timing information indicating at least one delivery timing determined ( see at least: Col.7 Lines 30-40, FIG. 3 shows an example order reception screen. When a vehicle is entered the vehicle name input field, the order receiving section 12 displays the selectable engines, transmissions, models, body colors, and options in respective areas according to the vehicle specifications master DB 20 and the parts information master DB 28. The customer selects desired options from to determine the specifications of the vehicle. In this case, a vehicle type which is selected for the “ordered vehicle” and the desired delivery date and others of the ordered vehicle are designated through the screen. The ordered-vehicle ordering section 14 adds the dealer information for specifying the dealer to the received order information to produce ordering information and transmits it to the production management system 40 of the production plant where the ordered vehicle type is produced (step 103). Upon completing the ordering process, the dealer is in a position of waiting to receive a delivery date response from the production plant. Col. 9 Lines 29-34, FIG. 10 shows that the production slot obtained is the fourth day from today. When this obtained production slot day is earlier than or same to the desired delivery date (step 203), it is judged that the customer's desire is satisfied. Whether or not the vehicle can be actually produced in the obtained production slot is then verified. Specifically, whether all the parts to be installed in the vehicle can be manufactured and procured before the production of the vehicle is started in the obtained production slot (step 204) and whether the production slots for all the pertinent parts can be secured by the date and time of the production slot of the vehicle based on the production slot DB 50 and the parts production slot DB 52 is verified. )
Miyahara does not explicitly teach delivery timing determined based on a number of days that is a period added to a standard delivery timing when each option indicated by the selection information is selected, however, this is taught by Chowdhry ( see at least: [0026] For example, adders enable components with a lead time to be added or removed from shipping date calculations and delivery date calculations. For example, a customer may request that a particular product, such as a laptop, be customized. In response, a manufacturer may determine to customize the laptops in Malaysia after they have been manufactured in China. The system may use machine learning to determine how much time is taken to divert the laptops to Malaysia and how long the customization process takes. When an order is received requesting customization, the system may determine that customizing the laptops in Malaysia after they have been manufactured in China is the most efficient means of performing the customization. The system may automatically add a “customize in Malaysia” adder to enable the estimated shipping dates and estimated delivery dates to take into account the delay caused to customize the laptops in Malaysia [0055] The lead time manager 118 may determine a lead time for an order (or a product in an order) based on a stock status 426 (e.g., whether a BTS item is in stock), the product database 106, lead times 318 (e.g., include a standard lead time 318(1) and an extended lead time 318(2), and the lead time database 312.)
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the added delivery days feature for the same reasons its useful in Chowdhry -namely, to enable the estimated shipping dates and estimated delivery dates to take into account the delay caused to customize the laptops in Malaysia ( par.26). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Miyahara further teaches outputting, by the controller, the at least one delivery timing together with the one or more selected options via the output unit. ( see at least: Col. 9 Lines 29-34, FIG. 10 shows that the production slot obtained is the fourth day from today. When this obtained production slot day is earlier than or same to the desired delivery date (step 203), it is judged that the customer's desire is satisfied. Whether or not the vehicle can be actually produced in the obtained production slot is then verified. Specifically, whether all the parts to be installed in the vehicle can be manufactured and procured before the production of the vehicle is started in the obtained production slot (step 204) and whether the production slots for all the pertinent parts can be secured by the date and time of the production slot of the vehicle based on the production slot DB 50 and the parts production slot DB 52 is verified. Col.7 Lines 30-40,)
As per claim 2, Miyahara in view of Chowdhry teaches claim 1 as above. Miyahara further teaches:
Wherein the at least one of the vehicle options indicated by the option information is a plurality of vehicle options; the selection information includes a plurality of selection sets each including a plurality of the selected options selected by the user from among the plurality of vehicle options; ( see at least: Col.7 line 30-50, FIG. 3 shows an example order reception screen. When a vehicle is entered the vehicle name input field, the order receiving section 12 displays the selectable engines, transmissions, models, body colors, and options in respective areas according to the vehicle specifications master DB 20 and the parts information master DB 28. The customer selects desired options from to determine the specifications of the vehicle. Col.7 Lines 51-67 [Fig. 4 and 5 showing the selection sets])
the delivery timing information indicates a plurality of delivery timings, each of the delivery timings being determined for a corresponding one of the selection sets; ( see at least, Fig. 4 and 5, Col.7 Lines 51-67, Upon receiving the delivery date (scheduled delivery date) response from the production plant, the order receiving section 12 displays the scheduled delivery date (step 104). When the scheduled delivery date meets the desired delivery date [ first set of the selection sets], the scheduled delivery date and the specifications of the ordered vehicle are displayed on a delivery date response screen as shown in FIG. 4. Next, an order processing button is selected to confirm the order and the order information is then stored in the ordering vehicle information DB 24 (steps 105, 109). If the scheduled delivery date is later than the desired delivery date [ second set of the selection sets], the customer is prompted to designate the customer's preference on a management function item indication screen shown in FIG. 5. This screen displays the contents of the order of the ordered vehicle and whether or not the basic parts, options, and the like required for the production of the ordered vehicle can be procured to deliver the vehicle on the desired delivery date).
outputting, by the controller, the delivery timings via the output unit. ( see at least: Col. 7 lines 51-67, Col.8, lines1-25, [ desired and undesired delivery dates correspond to the delivery timings based on the selection of vehicle’s specification] When the scheduled delivery date meets the desired delivery date, the scheduled delivery date and the specifications of the ordered vehicle are displayed on a delivery date response screen as shown in FIG. 4. Next, an order processing button is selected to confirm the order and the order information is then stored in the ordering vehicle information DB 24 (steps 105, 109). If the scheduled delivery date is later than the desired delivery date, the customer is prompted to designate the customer's preference on a management function item indication screen shown in FIG. 5. If it is impossible to deliver the vehicle with the ordered specifications by the desired delivery date despite the exchange, measures are taken by canceling the order, delaying the desired delivery date or changing the ordered specifications (step 110). For reference, the scheduled delivery date may be displayed on the management function item indication screen so to suggest how long the desired delivery date must be postponed).
As per claim 5, Miyahara teaches:
A method to be executed by a terminal device including an input unit, an output unit, a communication unit, and a controller, the communication unit being configured to communicate with an information processing device configured to provide vehicle options, ( see at least: Col.4 lines 44-65, Col. 7 Lines 24-42,The order receiving section 12 stores customer information about a customer who has decided to purchase a vehicle, which is entered through a customer information input screen not shown, into the customer information DB 22 (step 101) and also receives the specifications of the ordered vehicle entered through the order reception screen (step 102). FIG. 3 shows an example order reception screen. When a vehicle is entered the vehicle name input field, the order receiving section 12 displays the selectable engines, transmissions, models, body colors, and options in respective areas according to the vehicle specifications master DB 20 and the parts information master DB 28. The customer selects desired options from to determine the specifications of the vehicle. In this case, a vehicle type which is selected for the “ordered vehicle” and the desired delivery date and others of the ordered vehicle are designated through the screen. After determining necessary items as above, a “delivery date response” button is clicked to send the entered information as order information to the ordered-vehicle ordering section 14. ).
Miyahara does not explicitly teach provide a sales website for vehicle options, however, this is taught by Chowdhry ( see at least: [0032] The customer may determine, using an online website (e.g., that displays the lead time data 138 provided by the commitment engine 102), that a BTS product is in stock and the lead time to deliver the product is zero.)
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the website feature for the same reasons its useful in Chowdhry -namely, to view substantially in real time lead times for different types of products (par.37). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Miyahara further teaches receiving, by the controller, option information from the information processing device via the communication unit, the option information indicating at least one of the vehicle options; outputting, by the controller, the at least one of the vehicle options via the output unit; ( see at least: Fig.1, Col.4 lines 44-65, The production management system 40 [the information processing device] receives order information from the order reception management system 10 and replies by providing a delivery date of the ordered vehicle before beginning manufacture. The ordered vehicle is produced by adding options such as aluminum wheels, car audio equipment and other various accessories to the chassis of a vehicle, which is produced by assembling a car body, an engine, and other equipment and parts, Col. 7 Lines 24-42,)
Miyahara further teaches receiving, by the controller, an input of one or more selected options selected by a user from the at least one of the vehicle options via the input unit;( see at least: Fig.1, Col.4 lines 44-65, The production management system 40 receives order information from the order reception management system 10 and replies by providing a delivery date of the ordered vehicle before beginning manufacture. The ordered vehicle is produced by adding options such as aluminum wheels, car audio equipment and other various accessories to the chassis of a vehicle, which is produced by assembling a car body, an engine, and other equipment and parts, Col. 7 Lines 24-42)
Miyahara further teaches transmitting, by the controller, selection information indicating the one or more selected options to the information processing device via the communication unit; ( see at least: Fig.1, Col.4 lines 44-65, The production management system 40 receives order information from the order reception management system 10 and replies by providing a delivery date of the ordered vehicle before beginning manufacture. The ordered vehicle is produced by adding options such as aluminum wheels, car audio equipment and other various accessories to the chassis of a vehicle, which is produced by assembling a car body, an engine, and other equipment and parts, Col.7 Lines 30-40, FIG. 3 shows an example order reception screen. When a vehicle is entered the vehicle name input field, the order receiving section 12 displays the selectable engines, transmissions, models, body colors, and options in respective areas according to the vehicle specifications master DB 20 and the parts information master DB 28. The customer selects desired options from to determine the specifications of the vehicle. In this case, a vehicle type which is selected for the “ordered vehicle” and the desired delivery date and others of the ordered vehicle are designated through the screen. The ordered-vehicle ordering section 14 adds the dealer information for specifying the dealer to the received order information to produce ordering information and transmits it to the production management system 40 of the production plant where the ordered vehicle type is produced (step 103)) ).
receiving, by the controller from the information processing device via the communication unit, delivery timing information indicating at least one delivery timing determined based on the one or more selected options indicated by the selection information; ( see at least: Col.7 Lines 30-40, FIG. 3 shows an example order reception screen. When a vehicle is entered the vehicle name input field, the order receiving section 12 displays the selectable engines, transmissions, models, body colors, and options in respective areas according to the vehicle specifications master DB 20 and the parts information master DB 28. The customer selects desired options from to determine the specifications of the vehicle. In this case, a vehicle type which is selected for the “ordered vehicle” and the desired delivery date and others of the ordered vehicle are designated through the screen Col. 9 Lines 29-34, FIG. 10 shows that the production slot obtained is the fourth day from today. When this obtained production slot day is earlier than or same to the desired delivery date (step 203), it is judged that the customer's desire is satisfied. Whether or not the vehicle can be actually produced in the obtained production slot is then verified. Specifically, whether all the parts to be installed in the vehicle can be manufactured and procured before the production of the vehicle is started in the obtained production slot (step 204) and whether the production slots for all the pertinent parts can be secured by the date and time of the production slot of the vehicle based on the production slot DB 50 and the parts production slot DB 52 is verified. )
Miyahara does not explicitly teach delivery timing determined based on a number of days that is a period added to a standard delivery timing when each option indicated by the selection information is selected, however, this is taught by Chowdhry ( see at least: [0026] For example, adders enable components with a lead time to be added or removed from shipping date calculations and delivery date calculations. For example, a customer may request that a particular product, such as a laptop, be customized. In response, a manufacturer may determine to customize the laptops in Malaysia after they have been manufactured in China. The system may use machine learning to determine how much time is taken to divert the laptops to Malaysia and how long the customization process takes. When an order is received requesting customization, the system may determine that customizing the laptops in Malaysia after they have been manufactured in China is the most efficient means of performing the customization. The system may automatically add a “customize in Malaysia” adder to enable the estimated shipping dates and estimated delivery dates to take into account the delay caused to customize the laptops in Malaysia [0055] The lead time manager 118 may determine a lead time for an order (or a product in an order) based on a stock status 426 (e.g., whether a BTS item is in stock), the product database 106, lead times 318 (e.g., include a standard lead time 318(1) and an extended lead time 318(2), and the lead time database 312.)
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the added delivery days feature for the same reasons its useful in Chowdhry -namely, to enable the estimated shipping dates and estimated delivery dates to take into account the delay caused to customize the laptops in Malaysia ( par.26). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Miyahara further teaches outputting, by the controller, the at least one delivery timing together with the one or more selected options via the output unit. ( see at least: Col. 9 Lines 29-34, FIG. 10 shows that the production slot obtained is the fourth day from today. When this obtained production slot day is earlier than or same to the desired delivery date (step 203), it is judged that the customer's desire is satisfied. Whether or not the vehicle can be actually produced in the obtained production slot is then verified. Specifically, whether all the parts to be installed in the vehicle can be manufactured and procured before the production of the vehicle is started in the obtained production slot (step 204) and whether the production slots for all the pertinent parts can be secured by the date and time of the production slot of the vehicle based on the production slot DB 50 and the parts production slot DB 52 is verified. Col.7 Lines 30-40).
As per claim 6, Miyahara in view of Chowdhry teaches claim 5 as above. Miyahara further teaches:
Wherein the at least one of the vehicle options indicated by the option information is a plurality of vehicle options; the selection information includes a plurality of selection sets each including a plurality of the selected options selected by the user from among the plurality of vehicle options; (see at least: Col. 7 line 31-, FIG. 3 shows an example order reception screen. When a vehicle is entered the vehicle name input field, the order receiving section 12 displays the selectable engines, transmissions, models, body colors, and options in respective areas according to the vehicle specifications master DB 20 and the parts information master DB 28. The customer selects desired options from to determine the specifications of the vehicle. In this case, a vehicle type which is selected for the “ordered vehicle” and the desired delivery date and others of the ordered vehicle are designated through the screen. After determining necessary items as above, a “delivery date response” button is clicked to send the entered information as order information to the ordered-vehicle ordering section 14. Col.7 Lines 51-67 [Fig. 4 and 5 showing the selection sets])
the delivery timing information indicates a plurality of delivery timings, each of the delivery timings being determined for a corresponding one of the selection sets; (see at least, Fig. 4 and 5, Col.7 Lines 51-67, Upon receiving the delivery date (scheduled delivery date) response from the production plant, the order receiving section 12 displays the scheduled delivery date (step 104). When the scheduled delivery date meets the desired delivery date [ first set of the selection sets] , the scheduled delivery date and the specifications of the ordered vehicle are displayed on a delivery date response screen as shown in FIG. 4. Next, an order processing button is selected to confirm the order and the order information is then stored in the ordering vehicle information DB 24 (steps 105, 109). If the scheduled delivery date is later than the desired delivery date [second set of the selection sets] , the customer is prompted to designate the customer's preference on a management function item indication screen shown in FIG. 5. This screen displays the contents of the order of the ordered vehicle and whether or not the basic parts, options, and the like required for the production of the ordered vehicle can be procured to deliver the vehicle on the desired delivery date.
outputting, by the controller, the delivery timings via the output unit. ( see at least: Col. 7 lines 51-67, Col.8 lines1-25, [ desired and undesired delivery dates correspond to the delivery timings based on the selection of vehicle’s specification] When the scheduled delivery date meets the desired delivery date, the scheduled delivery date and the specifications of the ordered vehicle are displayed on a delivery date response screen as shown in FIG. 4. Next, an order processing button is selected to confirm the order and the order information is then stored in the ordering vehicle information DB 24 (steps 105, 109). If the scheduled delivery date is later than the desired delivery date, the customer is prompted to designate the customer's preference on a management function item indication screen shown in FIG. 5. If it is impossible to deliver the vehicle with the ordered specifications by the desired delivery date despite the exchange, measures are taken by canceling the order, delaying the desired delivery date or changing the ordered specifications (step 110). For reference, the scheduled delivery date may be displayed on the management function item indication screen so to suggest how long the desired delivery date must be postponed).
As per claim 11, Miyahara in view of Chowdhry teaches claim 5 as above. Miyahara further teaches:
receiving, by the controller from the information processing device via the communication unit, information indicating a period that affects determination of the at least one delivery timing and is associated with the one or more selected options indicated by the selection information; and outputting, by the controller, the period via the output unit. ( see at least: Fig. 10 (N+1, N+2,N+3 N+5 period), Col. 9 Lines 29-57, FIG. 10 shows that the production slot obtained is the fourth day from today. When this obtained production slot day is earlier than or same to the desired delivery date (step 203) [ the period] , it is judged that the customer's desire is satisfied. Whether or not the vehicle can be actually produced in the obtained production slot is then verified. Specifically, whether all the parts to be installed in the vehicle can be manufactured and procured before the production of the vehicle is started in the obtained production slot (step 204) and whether the production slots for all the pertinent parts can be secured by the date and time of the production slot of the vehicle based on the production slot DB 50 and the parts production slot DB 52 is verified. When it is determined that all parts can be procured by the production slot of the vehicle as shown in FIG. 10, it is judged that the vehicle ordered by the customer can be produced in the production slot obtained for the vehicle, and that production slot day is communicated to the dealer as the scheduled delivery date (step 216). As described above, to produce the vehicle in the obtained production slot of the vehicle, it is necessary to judge in the strict sense whether the parts can be procured on the basis of time which is obtained by subtracting a transportation time or the like of the parts set in the part information master DB 58 from the date and time of the secured production slot of the vehicle. The possibility of procuring the, parts is judged in this embodiment by merely comparing the production slot days of the vehicle and the parts for the sake of simplification of the description).
Claims 13-14, 19 recite similar limitations as claims 5-6, 11, therefore they are rejected over the same rationales.
Claim(s) 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahara (US6711449B1) in view of Chowdhry (US2017/0255903 A1) in further view of Ly ( US 2007/0260528A1)
As per claim 12, Miyahara in view of Chowdhry teaches claim 5 as above. Miyahara further teaches:
receiving, by the controller from the information processing device via the communication unit, information indicating one or more selected options indicated by the selection information are selected; and outputting, by the controller, the information via the output unit. ( see at least: Fig. 1 Col. 7 Lines 24-42)
Miyahara does not explicitly teach receiving estimate information indicating an estimated price in a case where the one or more selected options indicated by the selection information are selected; and outputting the estimated price. However, this is taught by Ly. ( see at least: Fig.4-5 and 7, [0100] the fleet manager or the driver may be able to configure and price new vehicles for ordering, though in alternative embodiments the driver may be restricted to only selecting pre-configured vehicles customizable with those options the fleet manager has selected. [0072-73] A web page as illustrated in FIG. 7 may summarize the selected options into an estimated vehicle cost to enable the fleet manager to evaluate the assembled vehicle specification.[0107] As illustrated in FIG. 23, the company for which the driver works may not pay some of the options available to the driver. These driver selectable options will be shown along with the price that the driver must personally pay for that option.)
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the estimated price feature for the same reasons its useful in Ly -namely, these driver selectable options will be shown along with the price that the driver must personally pay for that option ( par.107). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Claim 20 recites similar limitations as claims 12, therefore its rejected over the same rationales.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahara (US6711449B1) in view of Chowdhry (US2017/0255903 A1) in further view of USHIJIMA-MWESIGWA ( US 20230018946 A1)
As per claim 3, Miyahara in view of Chowdhry teaches claim 2 as above. Miyahara further teaches:
outputting, by the controller, the delivery timings, via the output unit (see at least: Col.7 Lines 51-67, Upon receiving the delivery date (scheduled delivery date) response from the production plant, the order receiving section 12 displays the scheduled delivery date (step 104). When the scheduled delivery date meets the desired delivery date [first set of the selection sets] , the scheduled delivery date and the specifications of the ordered vehicle are displayed on a delivery date response screen as shown in FIG. 4. Next, an order processing button is selected to confirm the order and the order information is then stored in the ordering vehicle information DB 24 (steps 105, 109). If the scheduled delivery date is later than the desired delivery date [ second set of the selection sets] , the customer is prompted to designate the customer's preference on a management function item indication screen shown in FIG. 5.)
Miyahra does not explicitly teach delivery timings in order from an earliest delivery timing together with the selection sets. However, this is taught by USHIJIMA-MWESIGWA ( see at least: Fig. 1, [0066] Table 1 shows set of orders with a ranked delivery dated from 2022 Ju1- 2024 Oct 1, [0028] The set of delivery dates associated with the set of orders may include, for example, a fulfilment date, an earliest fulfilment date, a delivery date, a shipping date, an earliest shipping date, a start date, an earliest allowed start date, and the like [0137] At 604, each of the set of orders may be sorted on the set of production lines based on the third input (as described in FIG. 4 ) More specifically, each of the set of orders on the set of production lines may be sorted based on an earliest allowed start date associated with the set of orders. [0087] . The third input may include first information associated with a day-wise availability of each of the set of production lines until a future date and second information associated with a fulfilment schedule (specifically delivery date) associated with the set of orders).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the order of the delivery dates feature for the same reasons its useful in USHIJIMA-MWESIGWA -namely, to compose and solve an optimization problem on production scheduling ( par.22). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Claim(s) 4, 8-9, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahara (US6711449B1) in view of Chowdhry (US2017/0255903 A1) in further view Lovelace (US 20110153463 A1)
As per claim 4, Miyahara in view of Chowdhry teaches claim 1 as above. Miyahara further teaches:
receiving, by the controller from the information processing device via the communication unit, deletion candidate option information indicating a deletion candidate option that is expected to, when not selected, bring forward the delivery timing by a predetermined period or more among the one or more selected options indicated by the selection information; outputting, by the controller, the deletion candidate option ( see at least: Fig.5 #change of specification #exchange process, Col.7-8 Line 60-25, If the scheduled delivery date is later than the desired delivery date, the customer is prompted to designate the customer's preference on a management function item indication screen shown in FIG. 5. This screen displays the contents of the order of the ordered vehicle and whether or not the basic parts, options, and the like required for the production of the ordered vehicle can be procured to deliver the vehicle on the desired delivery date. Such information is sent together with the scheduled delivery date from the production management system 40 in step 104. This screen shows an example in which the desired delivery date cannot be met because an optional part, a navigation system “EMV Navi” [deletion candidate option], cannot be procured. Therefore, the customer can see from the information that the customer must give up the navigation system to satisfy the desired delivery date. measures are taken by changing the ordered specifications (step 110). For reference, the scheduled delivery date may be displayed on the management function item indication screen so to suggest how long the desired delivery date must be postponed).
Miyahara does not explicitly teach outputting the option with highlight, however, this is taught by Lovelace ( see at least: [0075] when an element is selected, but is not currently in stock in inventory, the item will have a highlighted state (or text/graphic which indicates its out-of-stock status), and a message will be provided to the user (such as “out of stock”), and a pop-up message will display (such as “There are items in this design that are currently out of stock. Please replace these items before checking out.” [0101])
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the highlight feature for the same reasons its useful in Lovelace -namely, to communicate to the user it is not presently available and so that a user can easily understand this situation ( par.101). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 8, Miyahara in view of Chowdhry teaches claim 5 as above. Miyahara further teaches:
receiving, by the controller from the information processing device via the communication unit, deletion candidate option information indicating a deletion candidate option that is expected to, when not selected, bring forward the delivery timing by a predetermined period or more among the one or more selected options indicated by the selection information; outputting, by the controller, the deletion candidate option ( see at least: Fig.5 #change of specification #exchange process, Col. 7-8 Line 60-25, If the scheduled delivery date is later than the desired delivery date, the customer is prompted to designate the customer's preference on a management function item indication screen shown in FIG. 5. This screen displays the contents of the order of the ordered vehicle and whether or not the basic parts, options, and the like required for the production of the ordered vehicle can be procured to deliver the vehicle on the desired delivery date. Such information is sent together with the scheduled delivery date from the production management system 40 in step 104. This screen shows an example in which the desired delivery date cannot be met because an optional part, a navigation system “EMV Navi” [deletion candidate option], cannot be procured. Therefore, the customer can see from the information that the customer must give up the navigation system to satisfy the desired delivery date. measures are taken by changing the ordered specifications (step 110). For reference, the scheduled delivery date may be displayed on the management function item indication screen so to suggest how long the desired delivery date must be postponed).
Miyahara does not explicitly teach outputting the option with highlight, however, this is taught by Lovelace ( see at least: [0075] when an element is selected, but is not currently in stock in inventory, the item will have a highlighted state (or text/graphic which indicates its out-of-stock status), and a message will be provided to the user (such as “out of stock”), and a pop-up message will display (such as “There are items in this design that are currently out of stock. Please replace these items before checking out.” [0101])
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the highlight feature for the same reasons its useful in Lovelace -namely, to communicate to the user it is not presently available and so that a user can easily understand this situation ( par.101). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 9, Miyahara in view of Chowdhry and Lovelace teaches claim 8 as above. Miyahara further teaches:
the delivery timing information includes a delivery timing in a case where the deletion candidate option is replaced with another option among the at least one of the vehicle options indicated by the option information; the other option being the same kind as the deletion candidate option and being expected to, when the deletion candidate option is replaced by the other option, bring forward the delivery timing ( see at least : Col.11, line 57-67, If there is any part which cannot be secured by the production slot date of the vehicle, the production slot of the part may be exchanged in the same way as described above. For example, where the desired delivery date cannot be satisfied because the production slot of the part, “EMV Navi”, cannot be obtained as shown in FIG. 5, the pertinent part may be transferred from the potential vehicle or exchange candidate vehicle on which the same part is to be installed [same kind], so that the desire of the customer to buy the vehicle shown in FIG. 5 maybe satisfied. Thus, a delayed delivery or a cancelled order resulting from a shortage of parts can be avoided.)
outputting, by the controller via the output unit, an updated delivery timing, the updated delivery timing being the delivery timing updated in the case where the deletion candidate option is replaced with the other option. (see at least: Fig.6 #S216 response of the scheduled delivery date, Col. 10 Line 5-11, When it is found that the vehicle cannot be delivered by the desired delivery date when the process is limited to only free production slots, the dealer is informed that the vehicle cannot be delivered on the desired delivery date and the reasons (a list of parts which cannot be procured and the like) and also asked whether the dealer desires the management of exchange (step 206) . when the scheduled delivery date meeting the desired delivery date can be secured, the production slot date is responded as the scheduled delivery date to the dealer (step 216).
As per claim 21, Miyahara in view of Chowdhry and Lovelace teaches claim 9 as above. Miyahara further teaches:
wherein the output is a display, and the display changes an output screen to show the updated delivery time, the other option, and the deletion candidate option, the other option being shown as a replacement of the deletion candidate option on the output screen ( see at least: Fig.5 , [shows deletion candidate option] Fig.6 #S216 response of the scheduled delivery date [ showing the updated delivery time] , Col. 10 Line 5-11, When it is found that the vehicle cannot be delivered by the desired delivery date when the process is limited to only free production slots, the dealer is informed that the vehicle cannot be delivered on the desired delivery date and the reasons (a list of parts which cannot be procured and the like) [deletion candidate option] and also asked whether the dealer desires the management of exchange (step 206) . when the scheduled delivery date meeting the desired delivery date can be secured, the production slot date is responded as the scheduled delivery date to the dealer (step 216). Col.11, line 57-67, If there is any part which cannot be secured by the production slot date of the vehicle, the production slot of the part may be exchanged in the same way as described above. For example, where the desired delivery date cannot be satisfied because the production slot of the part, “EMV Navi”, cannot be obtained as shown in FIG. 5, the pertinent part [ replacement] may be transferred from the potential vehicle or exchange candidate vehicle on which the same part is to be installed [same kind], so that the desire of the customer to buy the vehicle shown in FIG. 5 maybe satisfied. Thus, a delayed delivery or a cancelled order resulting from a shortage of parts can be avoided))
Claims 16 and 17 recite similar limitations as claims 8-9, therefore they are rejected over the same rationales.
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahara (US6711449B1) in view of Chowdhry (US2017/0255903 A1) in view Lovelace (US 20110153463 A1) in further Kruck (US20230111745)
As per claim 10, Miyahara in view of Chowdhry and Lovelace teaches claim 9 as above. Miyahara further teaches:
wherein the other option includes a vehicle option ( see at least: Fig. 3 Col. 7 Lines 24-42)
Miyahara does not explicitly teach option of which the number of times of selection by users other than the user is equal to or larger than a predetermined value. However, this is taught by Kruck ( see at least: Fig.2#200 recommendation model [0026] The recommendation model 200 inputs the candidates generated by the sub-models and selects one or more of the candidates as the recommended replacement item(s) to recommend when an ordered item cannot be fulfilled [0036] when selecting a replacement product for a gift, the recommendation engine 115 may select from a set of other items that are tagged as being popular gifts rather than from a set of items that are likely to interest the customer. )
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the selection by other users feature for the same reasons its useful in Kruck -namely, to select items that are likely to be of interest to the customer who placed the BOPUS order ( par.11). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Claim 18 recites similar limitations as claim 10, therefore its rejected over the same rationales.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Examiner known no prior art that teaches or suggests alone, or in combination with other
arts all of the limitations of the claim 22.
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 MANAL A. ALSAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-5598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 5:00 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 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.
/M.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628