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 the Claims
Claims 1-5 are amended. Claims 6-8 are added as new claims. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/27/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended limitations provide meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner disagrees and applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. Applicant appears to argue that the claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Applicant is reminded that, as stated by the CAFC, “while preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., No. 2014-1139, 2014-1144, slip op. at 14 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2015). Further, applicant details that the limitations specify how information regarding the cost and the delivery date in the case of the vehicle delivery from the vehicle factory and in the case of the vehicle delivery from the vehicle dealer is timely calculated and made available for a user, and how the user can refer to that information and select either the vehicle dealer delivery or the vehicle factory delivery through the user interface; enables the user to see the comparison information that is timely generated at a timing of a predetermined number of days before the assembly completion date of the vehicle in the factory, and flexibly select the way of delivery of the vehicle based on the comparison information; enables the presentation of the user's selection to a person who is responsible for delivery so that they can arrange the delivery in accordance with the user's selection, thereby improving schedule management prior to the delivery of a vehicle to a user. The limitations and explanation given directly corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, relationships, or behaviors, commercial interactions, business relations), and mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing displaying comparison information to make an observation or evaluation, and making a decision (judgment/opinion)based on the evaluated and compared data. The claims recite an abstract idea. The alleged improvement of scheduling management is at best an improvement in the judicial exception itself and not an improvement in computers or technology. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology (emphasis added). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11, filed 06/27/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations: calculate cost and a delivery date for vehicle dealer delivery, and cost and a delivery date for vehicle factory delivery, wherein a user takes delivery from a vehicle dealer in the vehicle dealer delivery, and the user takes delivery from a vehicle factory in the vehicle factory delivery; calculate[s] the cost and the delivery date for the vehicle factory delivery a predetermined number of days before an assembly completion date of a vehicle at the vehicle factory, and calculate[s] the cost and the delivery date for the vehicle dealer delivery by adding cost and number of days required to transport the vehicle from the vehicle factory to the vehicle dealer to the cost and the delivery date for the vehicle factory delivery ; generate comparison information indicating the cost and the
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claim recites the additional elements of: an information processing device comprising a display and processor, a network, and a user interface on the terminal of the user. The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Additionally the network amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 recites the limitation(s): [the user interface] indicates one or more tasks that the user can perform on the vehicle, and [a checkbox icon] for each of the one or more tasks that is selectable by the user to indicate selected tasks from among the one or more tasks, and [the processor] is further configured to receive an input to [the checkbox icon] to indicate acceptance by the user of the selected tasks from among the one or more tasks. The limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above in the previous section. The claim also recites the additional elements of the user interface the processor, and a checkbox icon. The processor and user interface indicating the checkbox icon amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Additionally, the checkbox icon amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-5 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claim above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claim above. Thus, claims is 3-5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claim 6 recites the limitations: calculate cost and a delivery date for vehicle dealer delivery, and cost and a delivery date for vehicle factory delivery, wherein a user takes delivery from a vehicle dealer in the vehicle dealer delivery, and the user takes delivery from a vehicle factory in the vehicle factory delivery; calculate[s] the cost and the delivery date for the vehicle factory delivery a predetermined number of days before an assembly completion date of a vehicle at the vehicle factory, and calculate[s] the cost and the delivery date for the vehicle dealer delivery by adding cost and number of days required to transport the vehicle from the vehicle factory to the vehicle dealer to the cost and the delivery date for the vehicle factory delivery; generate comparison information indicating the cost and the delivery date for the vehicle dealer delivery, and the cost and the delivery date for the vehicle factory delivery, that are calculated; provide remote access to the user to enable the user to refer to the comparison information; present the comparison information to the user to prompt the user to input a selection of either the vehicle dealer delivery or the vehicle factory delivery to the user interface; receive the input made by the user to accept the selection; and display the accepted selection, wherein, [the user interface] indicates one or more tasks that the user can perform on the vehicle, a reduced cost and a reduced number of days until delivery of the vehicle for each of the one or more tasks, wherein the reduced cost and the reduced number of days are achieved when the user performs the corresponding task, a difficulty level for each of the one or more tasks, [a checkbox icon] for each of the one or more tasks that is selectable by the user to indicate selected tasks from among the one or more tasks, and [an enter button icon], and receive an input to indicate acceptance by the user of the selected tasks from among the one or more tasks, and receive an input to register the selected tasks. The claim is drawn towards scheduling management for the delivery of vehicles, and corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, relationships, or behaviors, commercial interactions, business relations), as evidenced by limitations such as calculating delivery costs and delivery dates for factory delivery and dealer delivery, the user taking delivery from either the factory/manufacturer or dealer, enabling the user to compare factory and dealer delivery information and make a selection based on the comparison information, and other information related the user making selections for the vehicle and/or vehicle delivery. The claim also recites limitations that correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing displaying comparison information to make an observation or evaluation, and making a decision (judgment/opinion)based on the evaluated and compared data. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claim recites the additional elements of: an information processing device comprising a display and processor, a network, a user interface on the terminal of the user, and the user interface indicating a checkbox icon and an enter button icon. The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Additionally the network and the checkbox and enter button icons amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 7-8 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claim above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claim above. Thus, claims is 7-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes Seth (US 7,065,499) which discloses a system wherein an a module receives a product inquiry from a user, the inquiry include a product configuration that includes a product identifier, one or more option values, and the delivery location for the product. The product may be a vehicle. The inventory engines receive the product configuration from the commerce module and identifies one or more products in the inventory of one or more sellers that exactly or partially match the product configuration based on one or more matching rules. The inventory engines also determine a delivery date for each matching product and communicate the matching products and associated delivery dates to the commerce module. The commerce module communicates the matching products and associated delivery dates to the user, receives a request for one of the matching products from the user, and communicates the request to the inventory engine, which receives the request and commits the requested product to the user. The prior art does not explicitly disclose the amended limitations of calculating the cost and the delivery date for the vehicle factory delivery a predetermined number of days before an assembly completion date of a vehicle at the vehicle factory, and calculating the cost and the delivery date for the vehicle dealer delivery by adding cost and number of days required to transport the vehicle from the vehicle factory to the vehicle dealer to the cost and the delivery date for the vehicle factory delivery. The claims overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature prior art found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes a publication entitled “Direct Car Sales: The Pros and Cons” (2023, RPM North America) which details the price/cost differences users may consider in selecting whether to take delivery from a factory versus a dealer. The prior art does not explicitly disclose the amended limitations of calculating the cost and the delivery date for the vehicle factory delivery a predetermined number of days before an assembly completion date of a vehicle at the vehicle factory, and calculating the cost and the delivery date for the vehicle dealer delivery by adding cost and number of days required to transport the vehicle from the vehicle factory to the vehicle dealer to the cost and the delivery date for the vehicle factory delivery. The claims overcome the prior art.
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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628