CTNF 18/981,919 CTNF 94814 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims The following is a non-final Office Action in response to application number 18981919 filed on December 16, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, and have been examined. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See 37 CFR 1.130(b). Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claim 1 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent No. 12190660 B2. Although the conflicting claim is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is directed to a similar subject matter contained in claim 1 of the ‘660 B2 patent. The only differences between the instant application and the ‘660 B2 patent is merely a labeling difference. It is noted that all the features of claim 1 is contained in claim 1 of the ‘660 B2 patent. Claim US 12190660 B2 Application #18981919 Application #17673037 Continuation to Application #17673037 1 A computer-implemented method for building a vehicle data repository , the method compromising: A computer-implemented method for determining a discrepancy between data sources and for displaying information of a standardized build sheet , the computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining, by one or more processors, vehicle build information for a plurality of vehicles manufactured by a plurality of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs ), the vehicle build information containing OEM-specific terminology associated with one or more features associated with each vehicle ; analyzing, by the one or more processors, obtained vehicle build information to generate an ontology model mapping each feature to any OEM-specific terminology associated with the feature for each OEM; applying, by the one or more processors, the ontology model to the vehicle build information to generate translated vehicle build information for each of the plurality of vehicles, such that the OEM-specific ter-minology associated with each feature is replaced with OEM-agnostic terminology for the feature; constructing, by the one or more processors, an OEM build sheet based upon the OEM-agnostic terminology; constructing, by one or more processors, an original equipment manufacturers (OEM) build sheet based upon: (i) vehicle build information from a first data source, and (ii) an OEM-agnostic terminology; obtaining, by the one or more processors, a vehicle build sheet from a second data source; obtaining, by the one or more processors, a vehicle build sheet from a second data source; constructing, by the one or more processors, a standardized build sheet comprising a plurality of fields, one field of the plurality of fields comprising a vehicle identification number (VIN), the standardized build sheet constructed by filling fields of the plurality of fields with information selected from the OEM build sheet and the vehicle build sheet from the second data source; constructing, by the one or more processors, the standardized build sheet comprising a plurality of fields, one field of the plurality of fields comprising a vehicle identification number (VIN), the standardized build sheet constructed by filling fields of the plurality of fields with information selected from the OEM build sheet and the vehicle build sheet from the second data source; populating, by the one or more processors, a discrepancy field of the standardized build sheet to indicate that a discrepancy exists between data sources; and populating, by the one or more processors, a discrepancy field of the standardized build sheet to indicate that the discrepancy exists between the data sources; and causing, by the one or more processors, a display to display information of the standardized build sheet. causing, by the one or more processors, a display to display the information of the standardized build sheet. Claim 1 of [#1891919] is rejected over [US Patent No. 12190660 B2 (#17673037)] Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claims 1-11 are directed to a “method”; claims 12-16 are directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”; and claims 17-20 are directed to a “system”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claim 1 recites an abstract idea of “building a data repository”. Specifically, the claim recites “ A computer-implemented method for determining a discrepancy between data sources and for displaying information of a standardized build sheet, the computer-implemented method comprising: constructing , by one or more processors , an original equipment manufacturers (OEM) build sheet based upon: (i) vehicle build information from a first data source, and (ii) an OEM-agnostic terminology ; obtaining , by the one or more processors , a vehicle build sheet from a second data source ; constructing , by the one or more processors , the standardized build sheet comprising a plurality of fields, one field of the plurality of fields comprising a vehicle identification number (VIN), the standardized build sheet constructed by filling fields of the plurality of fields with information selected from the OEM build sheet and the vehicle build sheet from the second data source ; populating , by the one or more processors , a discrepancy field of the standardized build sheet to indicate that the discrepancy exists between the data sources ; and causing, by the one or more processors, a display to display the information of the standardized build sheet .”, where the italicized claim language represents the abstract idea “building a data repository”. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.). Claim 1 , as drafted is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the abstract idea in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. In addition, the process, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the abstract idea by using generic computer components as “certain methods of organizing human activity” under “managing personal behavior following rules or instructions”. That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented” and “one or more processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from being performed by the human mind and by an operator using generic computer components. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim (the bolded claim language), such as “one or more processors” and “causing, by the one or more processors, a display to display the information of the standardized build sheet”, which amounts to merely “apply it”, as it represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “building a data repository”. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “building a data repository” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more processors”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory. Claim 12 also recites the abstract idea of “building a data repository”, as well the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for determining a discrepancy between data sources and for displaying information of a standardized build sheet comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to: … ”, “cause a display to display information of the standardized build sheet”, “analyze a first ontology model and the plurality of fields to generate a second ontology model mapping at least some terms of the first ontology model with fields of the plurality of fields”, and “applying the second ontology model”, which amounts to merely “apply it”, as it represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “building a data repository”. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “building a data repository” using computer technology (e.g., “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “one or more processors”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 12 is non-statutory. Claim 17 also recites the abstract idea of “building a data repository”, as well the additional elements of “A computer system for building a vehicle data repository, the computer system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory program memory communicatively coupled to the one or more processors and storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to: … ”, “cause a display to display information of the standardized build sheet”, and “applying an ontology model”, which amounts to merely “apply it”, as it represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “building a data repository”. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “building a data repository” using computer technology (e.g., “a non-transitory program memory” and “one or more processors”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 17 is non-statutory. Dependent claims 2-11 , 13-16 , and 18-20 further describe the abstract idea of “building a data repository”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1 , 12 , and 17 . Dependent claims 2-3 , 5 , 7-8 , 11 , and 18 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “building a data repository”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field, when analyzed under Step 2B. Dependent claims 4 and 14 recite new additional elements of “a machine learning algorithm” and “the trained machine learning algorithm”, which do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field. Dependent claims 6 and 13 recite a new additional element of “a vehicle data repository”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field. Dependent claim 9 recite a new additional element of “an ontology model”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field. Dependent claims 10 , 15-16 , and 19-20 recite a new additional element of “a particular vehicle”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field. Hence, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible. Allowable Subject Matter No prior art could be found that would anticipate or render obvious the independent claims. Upon resolution of the above issues, said claims will be in condition for allowance for the rationale similar in application 17673037 for claims 1 , 12 , and 17 : Claim 1 is allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art does not teach: “… constructing, by one or more processors, an original equipment manufacturers (OEM) build sheet based upon: (i) vehicle build information from a first data source, and (ii) an OEM-agnostic terminology; obtaining, by the one or more processors, a vehicle build sheet from a second data source; constructing, by the one or more processors, the standardized build sheet comprising a plurality of fields, one field of the plurality of fields comprising a vehicle identification number (VIN), the standardized build sheet constructed by filling fields of the plurality of fields with information selected from the OEM build sheet and the vehicle build sheet from the second data source; …” Claim 12 is allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art does not teach: “… construct the standardized build sheet comprising a plurality of fields, one field of the plurality of fields comprising a vehicle identification number (VIN); … analyze a first ontology model and the plurality of fields to generate a second ontology model mapping at least some terms of the first ontology model with fields of the plurality of fields; fill a second field of the plurality of fields by applying the second ontology model to an OEM build sheet and a vehicle build sheet of the second data source; and …” Claim 17 is allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art does not teach: “… construct a standardized build sheet comprising a plurality of fields, one field of the plurality of fields comprising a vehicle identification number ( VIN); … fill a second field of the plurality of fields by applying an ontology model to the first vehicle information and the second vehicle information; and …” Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Hysong et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140040840 A1) – Conflict Detection With Function Models Hysong discloses systems and methods for detecting design conflicts of a product or process. A method for detecting design conflicts includes processing a function model of a product or process to identify a plurality of descriptions of functions to be performed by the product or process. The method includes detecting in the plurality of descriptions a first description and a second description in which the first description includes a first design component name that matches a second design component name of the second description, a first descriptive noun that matches a second descriptive noun of the second description, and a first active verb that does not match a second active verb of the second description. The method further includes flagging a relationship between the first description and the second description as a first conflict type and displaying, on a display device, information regarding he first conflict type. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, EST. 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, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (571) 270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /STEVEN CHISM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/981,919 Page 2 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/981,919 Page 3 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/981,919 Page 4 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/981,919 Page 5 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/981,919 Page 6 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/981,919 Page 7 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/981,919 Page 8 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/981,919 Page 9 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/981,919 Page 10 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/981,919 Page 11 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/981,919 Page 12 Art Unit: 3692
Prosecution Insights