CTNF 19/063,289 CTNF 73666 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. DETAILED ACTION This is in response to application filed on 2/26/25, in which Claims 1-5 are presented for examination of which Claim 1 is in independent form. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Please include “birth information” “history” and “vehicle” into the title. 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. Claim 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process for organizing human activity without adding significantly more. The independent Claims recite: acquire birth information and usage history information for a vehicle ( human activity: finding log with the made date of car and maintenance history ); and present the birth information and the usage history information to a user ( human activity: showing information to a potential buyer ). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no particular machine, particular transformation and no meaningful limitations that would amount to significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements. MPEP 2106.05(e) states that the claim should add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. MPEP 2106.05(h) states that limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The acquiring step recites an abstract idea. The presenting steps recite the additional elements. The presenting limitation is mere insignificant extra solution activity that do no not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recited controller is a generic computer component to the abstract idea which is merely applying an abstract idea “with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea”. The combination of the recited presenting and computer limitation would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is merely using generic computer components to which the idea is applied to. The last analysis regarding does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception is similar to the last analysis except that well-understood, routine and conventional devices are consider as part of the analysis. The presenting limitation is merely insignificant extra solution activity so this doesn’t amount to significantly more. The recited controller is a generic computer component that the abstract idea is applied to, and again the mere applying of an abstract idea “with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea” does not amount to significantly more. The combination of the recited receiving and computer limitations does not amount to significantly more as it is an application to generic computer components to which the idea is applied to. Dependent Claims 2-5 recite further human activity and hence do not add any particular machine, particular transformation or meaningful limitations that would amount to significantly more and therefore they are rejected as well. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20150254976 A1) in view of Bayer et al. (Bayer; US 7778841 B1) . Regarding Claim 1, Wu discloses an information processing apparatus ([0015] vehicle terminal device 10 can include a vehicle central processing unit (CPU) module 110 ), comprising a controller (110 of Fig 2) configured to: acquire birth information ([0015] vehicle identification code is unique and can include all registration information of the vehicle, such as color, model, manufacture, vehicle made date ) and usage history registration and owner information for a vehicle ([0015] registration area and information of vehicle owner ); and present the birth information and the usage history registration and owner information to a user ([0015] vehicle CPU module 110 can be configured to…supply information stored in the vehicle memory module 140 to the display module 150 ), but doesn’t specify usage history. In the same field of endeavor, Bayer discloses a method for generating information relating to a vehicle's history by identifying target records in a database, determining a total number of owners for each vehicle based on the target records, and displaying a listing of the vehicles including corresponding number of owners. Bayer discloses usage history (Col 4 Lines 60 – Col 5 Line 6 a computer implemented vehicle history information system 12 exchanges data with a plurality of remote terminals 14 through data transmission across a distributed network 16, e.g. Internet. The terminals 14 represent individual consumers and vehicle dealers accessing vehicle history information system 12, as discussed more fully hereinbelow, to obtain vehicle history information about a particular vehicle. Terminals 14 may also include vehicle history data sources or suppliers which are used by the vehicle history information system administrator to create and update vehicle history information in system 12. The vehicle history data suppliers may include individual consumers, vehicle dealers, state titling offices, Department of Motor Vehicles, auto auctions and any other source of vehicle information; Col 6 Lines 50-63 mileage, etc. ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu with Bayer using owner data in order to generate vehicle history records that accurately and effectively determine whether a transfer of ownership of a vehicle has occurred, as suggested by Bayer (Col 1 Lines 59-61). Regarding Claim 5, Wu doesn’t disclose the usage history information includes past owner information for the vehicle. Bayer discloses the usage history information includes past owner information for the vehicle (Claim 28 ownership module is further adapted to determine a number of previous owners for each of said plurality of vehicles based on said target records, and said user interface module is further adapted to display said determined number of owners for each of said vehicles listed ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Bayer in view of SENGOKU et al. (Sengoku; US 20190266816 A1) . Regarding Claim 2, Wu doesn’t disclose the birth information includes a part number of a part mounted in the vehicle, a total number of parts, part manufacturing plant information, and/or manufacturing plant information for the vehicle. In the same field of endeavor, Sengoku discloses a data registration system capable of efficiently registering highly effective data related to a vehicle. The data registration system includes an integration processing server and an integrated database server. Sengoku discloses birth information includes a part number of a part mounted in the vehicle, a total number of parts, part manufacturing plant information, and/or manufacturing plant information for the vehicle ([0031] A piece of manufacturing data is input from each plant 12 to the data processing server 2. The piece of manufacturing data is obtained by linking a vehicle ID, a time stamp at the time of vehicle manufacture, a manufacturing plant name, a manufacturing lot number of a vehicle, and the like to one another ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu with Sengoku using manufacturing data in order to provide capabilities of efficiently registering highly effective data on a broad scale, as suggested by Sengoku ([0004]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Bayer in view of Matsumoto (US 20020158760 A1) . Regarding Claim 3, Wu doesn’t disclose the usage history information includes inspection history information for the vehicle. In the same field of endeavor, Matsumoto discloses a fixed station and an on-board apparatus are constructed to carry out a short range communication. The on-board apparatus specifies an application from a command included in reception data received from the fixed station and starts a corresponding processing, when an acquired command is a menu selection command. A short range wireless unit is used to ensure individuality of the communication. This short range communication may also be used at a vehicle repair shop. Matsumoto discloses usage history information includes inspection history information for the vehicle ([0063] data base 54 stores information of respective vehicles (users), that is, past history information, information with regard to inspection and repair or the like, and the display apparatus 52 displays content of history information ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu with Matsumoto using inspection data in order to readily assess maintenance history to effectively determine new services required . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Bayer in view of Shimazu et al. (Shimazu; US 20150246613 A1) . Regarding Claim 4, Wu doesn’t disclose the usage history information includes repair history information for the vehicle. In the same field of endeavor, Shimazu discloses a work vehicle including an internal combustion engine and an exhaust gas treatment device that treats exhaust gas emitted from the internal combustion engine; a display control unit that causes a display unit to display information. Shimazu discloses the usage history information includes repair history information for the vehicle ([0077] the display control unit 22 displays an icon 42 to switch the operating state display image PSA displayed on the screen 21D to another image, for example, a menu image on which various setting information, repair history information, or the like is displayed ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu with Shimazu using repair history in order to readily assess maintenance history to effectively determine new services required . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. MORITA (US 20180299884 A1) discloses a server device according to one embodiment performs communication with a plurality of vehicles having an automatic driving function through a network. If the vehicle is completed, a completion date, a type of the vehicle, and components (hardware, software) of the vehicle in the vehicle information storage unit is recorded. Bauchot et al. (US 20100066513 A1) discloses a vehicle authorization method for transmitting, by a computing system in a vehicle, a first request for enabling the vehicle for a driver. The computing system receives vehicle identification data associated with the vehicle. The computing system generates and stores a report indicating the specified functions. The database is associated with the vehicle may include an ID for the vehicle, a creation date, an owner name and a list of authorized drivers. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK S RUSHING whose telephone number is (571)270-5876. The examiner can normally be reached on 10-6pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. /MARK S RUSHING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689 Application/Control Number: 19/063,289 Page 2 Art Unit: 2689 Application/Control Number: 19/063,289 Page 3 Art Unit: 2689 Application/Control Number: 19/063,289 Page 4 Art Unit: 2689 Application/Control Number: 19/063,289 Page 5 Art Unit: 2689 Application/Control Number: 19/063,289 Page 6 Art Unit: 2689 Application/Control Number: 19/063,289 Page 10 Art Unit: 2689 Application/Control Number: 19/063,289 Page 11 Art Unit: 2689
Prosecution Insights