DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 12 January 2026.
Claims 1-19 have been cancelled.
Claim 20 has been amended.
Claims 21-26 have been newly added.
Claims 20-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“identifying the vehicle by a vehicle identification apparatus” in claim 20
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 20-26 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.
Step 1: Claims 20-26 are drawn to a method (i.e., a process). As such, claims 20-26 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 20:
storing information on a vehicle stored in an automobile dealer before delivery to a purchaser, in association with identification information assigned to the vehicle;
upon accepting, from the purchaser, an information request including the identification information, generating or acquiring schedule information including one or more processes that are scheduled up to the delivery, to the purchaser, of the vehicle to which the identification information is assigned, the one or more processes being scheduled to be executed on the vehicle;
generating information for display to be displayed to the purchaser, and transmitting the information for display,
wherein the information for display includes information on a progress status in the one or more processes and information describing the one or more processes;
identifying the vehicle at a workplace in which at least one of the one or more processes is executed on the vehicle;
determining which one of the one or more processes is to be executed on the vehicle, based on the schedule information on the identified vehicle;
at the automobile dealer, enabling the automobile dealer to select whether to notify the purchaser of execution of the determined one of the one or more processes;
in response to the automobile dealer selecting to notify the purchaser of the execution of the determined one of the one or more processes, transmitting to the purchaser a notification that the determined one of the one or more processes is about to start:
executing the determined one of the one or more processes on the vehicle;
accepting, from the purchaser, a selection result configured for real-time display;
upon completing the determined one of the one or more processes, updating, the schedule information and the information on the progress status;
and delivering the vehicle to the purchaser in a final process of the one or more processes.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention discusses providing users with the progress statuses of vehicle until delivery is known. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is managing the personal interactions between people of tracking the delivery of a vehicle, which falls under “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 20 includes the following additional element(s): a controller of an information provision apparatus; a memory of the information provision apparatus; a purchaser terminal; and a vehicle identification apparatus located at a workplace. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 20 further recites the following additional elements: transmitting a signal to display a transmission availability selection screen to a dealer terminal; activating, in response to accepting the selection result, a real-time transmission of an image corresponding to an execution state of the determined one of the one or more processes captured by a camera; and displaying, in response to the real-time transmission of the image, the image on the purchaser terminal as a moving image and as part of the information for display. These additional element(s) do not integrate the exception into a practical application because it is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity because it is mere data gathering because the transmission of a signal/image is merely just a transmission of the instruction data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 20 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 element(s) of a controller of an information provision apparatus; a memory of the information provision apparatus; a purchaser terminal; and a vehicle identification apparatus located at a workplace individually or in combination do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 20 further recites the following additional element: transmitting a signal to display a transmission availability selection screen to a dealer terminal; activating. This additional element is merely just receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional computer activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) (see “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network” in MPEP 2106.05(d) II.). Therefore, this additional element alone or in combination does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Finally, claim 20 recites the additional elements of: in response to accepting the selection result, a real-time transmission of an image corresponding to an execution state of the determined one of the one or more processes captured by a camera; and displaying, in response to the real-time transmission of the image, the image on the purchaser terminal as a moving image and as part of the information for display. These additional element(s) do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field, comparable to the types of activity or elements that are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)) (see Paragraph [0067] of the instant specification “Upon accepting, from the purchaser terminal 30, a selection result for real-time display (S205: Yes), the controller 13 activates real-time transmission of an image captured by the camera 22 (S206). Thus, a real-time image 75 is displayed on the display 37 of the purchaser terminal 30. The latest information
on the vehicle 50 can be thereby provided as an image, such as a moving image, to the purchaser who is eagerly awaiting delivery of the vehicle 50.”) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 20 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 21 and 26 further include(s) the additional element(s): license plate installation (claim 21), driving recorder installation (claim 21), fog light installation (claim 21), body coating (claim 21), an RFID reader that reads an RFID attached to the vehicle (claim 26), and the camera that reads a two-dimensional code attached to the vehicle (claim 26). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., vehicles and code scanning) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 21 and 26 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 22-25 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefor claim(s) 22-25 are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth in this Office action.
The present invention is directed towards tracking the statuses for delivering a vehicle to a purchaser. Independent claims 20-26 teaches the novel and non-obvious features of:
storing, by a controller of an information provision apparatus, in a memory of the information provision apparatus, information on a vehicle stored in an automobile dealer before delivery to a purchaser, in association with identification information assigned to the vehicle;
upon accepting, from a purchaser terminal of the purchaser, an information request including the identification information, generating or acquiring, by the controller, schedule information including one or more processes that are scheduled up to the delivery, to the purchaser, of the vehicle to which the identification information is assigned, the one or more processes being scheduled to be executed on the vehicle;
generating, by the controller, information for display to be displayed to the purchaser, and transmitting the information for display to the purchaser terminal,
wherein the information for display includes information on a progress status in the one or more processes and information describing the one or more processes;
identifying the vehicle by a vehicle identification apparatus located at a workplace in which at least one of the one or more processes is executed on the vehicle;
determining, by the controller, which one of the one or more processes is to be executed on the vehicle, based on the schedule information on the identified vehicle;
transmitting, by the controller, a signal to display a transmission availability selection screen to a dealer terminal provided at the automobile dealer, the transmission availability selection screen enabling the automobile dealer to select whether to notify the purchaser terminal of execution of the determined one of the one or more processes;
in response to the automobile dealer selecting to notify the purchaser terminal of the execution of the determined one of the one or more processes, transmitting, by the controller, to the purchaser terminal, a notification that the determined one of the one or more processes is about to start:
executing the determined one of the one or more processes on the vehicle;
accepting, from the purchaser terminal, a selection result configured for real-time display;
activating, in response to accepting the selection result, a real-time transmission of an image corresponding to an execution state of the determined one of the one or more processes captured by a camera;
displaying, in response to the real-time transmission of the image, the image on the purchaser terminal as a moving image and as part of the information for display;
upon completing the determined one of the one or more processes, updating, by the controller, the schedule information and the information on the progress status; and
delivering the vehicle to the purchaser in a final process of the one or more processes.
The examiner notes that the particular way that the dealer and the purchaser influence the display of a real-time transmission of a moving image showing the processes being performed on a vehicle distinguishes the claimed invention from the prior art. While displaying a moving image showing the processes being performed is known, the specification of the specific ways that the vehicle is tracked using the vehicle identification apparatus and schedule information and the specification that in response to the dealer’s selection, notifying the purchaser terminal of execution of a determined process starting; the purchaser accepting the selection result; and in response to the dealer accepting the selection result, transmitting a real-time moving image of the process being performed on the vehicle to the purchaser terminal is novel. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the features of the claims exist individually, the combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence obtained to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
The following references have been identified as the most relevant prior art to the claimed invention:
Woytowick (US 20060155614 A1) teaches delivering a vehicle from a seller to a dealer to a purchaser, showing images of the vehicle to the purchaser, and withholding tracking information of the vehicle from the customer. Woytowick is silent to the images being moving images, the particular way the dealer enables or disables transmission of the tracking data to the customer, and the particular way that the vehicle is tracked throughout the delivery process.
Rael-Dalpe (US 20150262121 A1) teaches displaying real time moving images to a customer containing processes being performed on the item being delivered to the customer. Rael-Dalpe is silent to the item being a vehicle shipped from dealer to purchaser, the dealer determining whether the purchaser is notified of various processes beginning, and the particular way that schedule information is tracked.
Neither Woyowick nor Rael-Dalpe anticipate or render obvious:
identifying the vehicle by a vehicle identification apparatus located at a workplace in which at least one of the one or more processes is executed on the vehicle;
determining, by the controller, which one of the one or more processes is to be executed on the vehicle, based on the schedule information on the identified vehicle;
transmitting, by the controller, a signal to display a transmission availability selection screen to a dealer terminal provided at the automobile dealer, the transmission availability selection screen enabling the automobile dealer to select whether to notify the purchaser terminal of execution of the determined one of the one or more processes;
in response to the automobile dealer selecting to notify the purchaser terminal of the execution of the determined one of the one or more processes, transmitting, by the controller, to the purchaser terminal, a notification that the determined one of the one or more processes is about to start:
executing the determined one of the one or more processes on the vehicle;
accepting, from the purchaser terminal, a selection result configured for real-time display;
activating, in response to accepting the selection result, a real-time transmission of an image corresponding to an execution state of the determined one of the one or more processes captured by a camera;
displaying, in response to the real-time transmission of the image, the image on the purchaser terminal as a moving image and as part of the information for display; and
upon completing the determined one of the one or more processes, updating, by the controller, the schedule information and the information on the progress status.
Assuming arguendo that the features of the claims exist individually, the combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence obtained to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant's claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (see attached NPL)- BCVehis: A Blockchain-Based Service Prototype of Vehicle History Tracking for Used-Car Trades in China
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 12 January 2026, with respect to the claim objection of claim 11have been fully considered and is moot due to the cancellation of claim 11. The claim objection of claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 7-10, filed 12 January 2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-19 have been cancelled. Claim 20 has been amended. Applicant argues 1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, 2) the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, and 3) the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument 1, the Applicant argues the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the amendments recite limitations not directed to the abstract idea. USPTO guidance uses the term ‘‘additional elements’’ to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. The Examiner agrees that most of the limitations discussed on page 8 of the remarks are additional elements, but the mere inclusion of an additional element does not make the claims eligible. The Examiner must analyze the claims under the Alice/Mayo test for eligibility, which was done above and will be discussed further in arguments 2 and 3. The Examiner maintains that since the claims discuss “acquiring information on the progress status of a specific vehicle corresponding to identification information, from among information on the progress statuses of multiple vehicles before delivery” (see Paragraph [0003] of the instant specification), the claims are directed to the abstract idea of tracking a delivery. The Examiner further notes that the limitation of “upon completing the determined one of the one or more processes, updating […] the schedule information on the progress status” as discusses on page 8 of the remarks recites an abstract idea directed towards tracking delivery, as well. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are directed to a method of organizing human activity under the sub category of managing personal behavior or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Regarding argument 2, the Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application because a) the determined one of the one or more processes is positively recited as being executed; b) the purchaser is provided with a progress status in processes from arrival of the vehicle at the dealer in delivering the vehicle to the purchaser up to the actual delivery of the vehicle to the purchaser; and c) the implementation of the selection result configured for real-time display. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding point a, the processes being positively executed does not integrate the claims into a practical application because the processes can be abstract (i.e., new vehicle registration procedure and inspection and verification process in claim 21 of the instant invention). The execution of the processes do not effect a transformation or reduction of the vehicle to a different state or thing because a new vehicle registration procedure and an inspection and verification processes does not put the vehicle in a new state. There is no physical or tangible change to the vehicle. Similarly, in regards to point b, “the purchaser is provided with a progress status in processes from arrival of the vehicle at the dealer in delivering the vehicle to the purchaser up to the actual delivery of the vehicle to the purchaser” is also an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity falling under the subcategory of managing personal interactions between people and personal behaviors (i.e. item delivery and tracking). Since the progress status updates and the processes do not go beyond the identified judicial exception, the improvement is not considered to be technical in nature. Therefore the invention is an improvement to the abstract idea and not to a specific technical problem. An improvement to the abstract idea does not integrate the claim into a practical application. Therefore, point a and b is not persuasive. In regards to point c, the Examiner cites to MPEP 2106.05(g):
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.
The act of accepting a data transmission, gathering moving image data, and transmitting/displaying the movement image data is mere data gathering because the transmission of a signals are merely just a transmission of the instruction data. The invention is directed to the tracking of the vehicle, and the steps involved in outputting this information to the user is a post-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole. This post solution activity is just a set of signals outputting a report of the tracking which is recited in a claim to analyze and track a delivery of a vehicle. This is similar to the example from MPEP 2106.05(g) regarding a printer outputting a report of fraudulent transactions recited in a claim to a computer program for analyzing and manipulation information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding argument 3, the applicant argues the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in argument 1, “upon completing the determined one of the one or more processes, updating […] the schedule information on the progress status” is an abstract idea. An abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than an abstract idea. As explained in the above 101 rejection, the recitation of “executing the determined one of the one or more processes on the vehicle” and “delivering the vehicle to the purchaser in the final process of the one or more processes” does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, because the processes can be abstract (as explained in argument 2). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II recites:
Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.
The delivery as claimed can be performed by a human driving a car. Delivery of a vehicle by a human would be an activity when a single person interacts with a machine (vehicle) to perform an activity (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II). Therefore, the delivery is abstract. An abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Finally, the “accepting from the purchaser terminal, a selection result configured for real-time display; activating, in response to accepting the selection result, a real-time transmission of an image corresponding to an execution state of the determined one of the one or more processes captured by a camera; displaying, in response to the real-time transmission of the image, the image on the purchaser terminal as a moving image and as part of the information for display” is well-understood routine and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d) recites:
As such, an examiner should determine that an element (or combination of elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude, based on their expertise in the art, that the element is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. The analysis as to whether an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use is the same as the analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as to whether an element is so well-known that it need not be described in detail in the patent specification. See Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 ( Fed. Cir. 2016) (supporting the position that amplification was well-understood, routine, conventional for purposes of subject matter eligibility by observing that the patentee expressly argued during prosecution of the application that amplification was a technique readily practiced by those skilled in the art to overcome the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph); see also Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463, 221 USPQ 481, 489 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art."); In re Myers, 410 F.2d 420, 424, 161 USPQ 668, 671 (CCPA 1969) ("A specification is directed to those skilled in the art and need not teach or point out in detail that which is well-known in the art."); Exergen Corp., 725 Fed. App’x. 959, 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that "[l]ike indefiniteness, enablement, or obviousness, whether a claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter is a question of law based on underlying facts," and noting that the Supreme Court has recognized that "the inquiry 'might sometimes overlap' with other fact-intensive inquiries like novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102").
Paragraph [0067] of the instant specification recites:
Upon accepting, from the purchaser terminal 30, a selection result for real-time display (S205: Yes), the controller 13 activates real-time transmission of an image captured by the camera 22 (S206). Thus, a real-time image 75 is displayed on the display 37 of the purchaser terminal 30. The latest information on the vehicle 50 can be thereby provided as an image, such as a moving image, to the purchaser who is eagerly awaiting delivery of the vehicle 50.
Paragraph [0067] of the instant specification describes the acceptance, transmission, and display of the information at such a high level that each step only requires one line of explanation. The explanation in the specification go no further in depth than the claims. These claim limitations require no further explanation under 112(a) enablement, and are therefore well-understood routine and convention (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 10-14, filed 12 January 2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to claim 20. Claims 1-19 have been cancelled. Claim 20 have been amended. Claims 21-26 has been newly added. Assuming arguendo that the features of the claims exist individually, the combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence obtained to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant's claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias. The 103 rejection of claim 20 has been withdrawn. Claims 21-26 are dependent on claim 20, and are non-obvious for similar reasons to claim 20.
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 DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571) 272-6782. 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.
/DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights