DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Application 19/069,880 filed on 03/04/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
The action is made NON-FINAL.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter) since the claimed invention falls into “an article of manufacture” (a non-transitory computer readable medium for identifying and calculating financial loss incurred from odometer fraud) category.
Regarding Claims 1-20, the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
…, perform the steps of:
providing a detailed damage assessment of a vehicle including a price of the vehicle paid by a buyer at a time of purchase of the vehicle and a fraudulent odometer mileage;
determining an anticipated remaining lifetime mileage of the vehicle at the time of purchase of the vehicle based on the fraudulent odometer mileage and a maximum anticipated final lifetime mileage;
determining a dollar residual remaining usage value available at the time of purchase of the vehicle based on the anticipated remaining lifetime mileage of the vehicles and a true remaining lifetime mileage at the time of purchase of the vehicle, the true remaining lifetime mileage based on a true mileage of the vehicle and the maximum anticipated final lifetime mileage; and
determining total financial loss based on the dollar residual remaining usage value and the price of the vehicle paid by the buyer.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 1 described above are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve commercial interactions. The limitations of providing a detailed damage assessment of a vehicle, determining an anticipated and a dollar remaining lifetime mileage of the vehicle, and determining total financial loss, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve a commercial interaction such as sales activities and managing business relations. Therefore, other than reciting a generic computerized system, a generic database, and generic user devices, nothing in the claim elements preclude anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements – “a non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions stored thereon, that when executed by a processor”. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of providing a detailed damage assessment of a vehicle, determining an anticipated and a dollar remaining lifetime mileage of the vehicle, and determining total financial loss by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for identifying and calculating financial loss incurred from odometer fraud (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 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 of using a computer system to perform a process for identifying and calculating financial loss incurred from odometer fraud amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-20 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein providing the detailed damage assessment of a vehicle includes providing vehicle information” in Claim 2, by defining “wherein providing vehicle information includes providing the year, make, and model of the vehicle” in Claim 3, by defining “wherein the maximum anticipated final lifetime mileage is based on the vehicle information” in Claim 4, by defining “wherein the fraudulent odometer mileage is the mileage of a rolled-back odometer, and wherein the mileage of the rolled-back odometer is less than the true mileage of the vehicle” in Claim 5, by defining “wherein the fraudulent odometer mileage is a mileage of a second odometer used to replace a first odometer of the vehicle, and wherein a mileage of the first odometer is greater than a mileage of the second odometer” in Claim 6, by defining “wherein the true mileage of the vehicle is a mileage of the vehicle at a time a seller purchased the vehicle” in Claim 7, by defining “wherein determining the total financial loss includes determining a repair cost of the vehicle after the time the buyer purchased the vehicle” in Claim 8, by defining “wherein determining the total financial loss comprises determining an anticipated resale value of the vehicle” in Claim 9, by defining “wherein the anticipated resale value of the vehicle is based on the anticipated remaining lifetime mileage of the vehicle” in Claim 10, by defining “wherein determining the anticipated resale value of the value is based on a True Mileage Unknown (TMU) loss of value” in Claim 11, by defining “wherein the TMU loss of value is based on a maximum loss of value, a first mitigation factor of vehicle age at the time of purchase, and a second mitigation factor of vehicle mileage at the time of purchase” in Claim 12, by defining “wherein the maximum loss of value is based on a percentage of the price of the vehicle paid by the buyer” in Claim 13, by defining “wherein prior to determining the dollar residual remaining usage value, a residual remaining usage value is determined” in Claim 14, by defining “wherein the residual remaining usage value is a percentage residual based on the anticipated remaining lifetime mileage at the time of purchase and the true remaining lifetime mileage at the time of purchase” in Claim 15, by defining “wherein the residual remaining usage value is zero” in Claim 16, by defining “wherein the dollar residual remaining usage value available at the time of purchase is zero” in Claim 17, by defining “wherein the total financial loss is the price of the vehicle paid by the buyer” in Claim 18, by defining “wherein the anticipated remaining lifetime mileage at the time of purchase is less than the anticipated remaining lifetime mileage at the time of purchase” in Claim 19, and by defining “further comprising generating a report of the total financial loss” in Claim 20.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-20 would be allowable over prior art of record; however, they remain rejected under other statues. After having performed a search of prior art, including all feature limitations of independent claim 1, the references fail to teach or suggest alone, or in combination with other art, independent claim 1 in their entirety; and in particular, “determining an anticipated remaining lifetime mileage of the vehicle at the time of purchase of the vehicle based on the fraudulent odometer mileage and a maximum anticipated final lifetime mileage; determining a dollar residual remaining usage value available at the time of purchase of the vehicle based on the anticipated remaining lifetime mileage of the vehicles and a true remaining lifetime mileage at the time of purchase of the vehicle, the true remaining lifetime mileage based on a true mileage of the vehicle and the maximum anticipated final lifetime mileage; and determining total financial loss based on the dollar residual remaining usage value and the price of the vehicle paid by the buyer” in combination with other claim limitations, as recited in Claim 1.
Regarding the novelty/non-obviousness of the invention, the closet prior art is found to be Anspach et al. (US 2011/0270706 A1; hereinafter, “Anspach”) in view of Yang et al. (KR 101675820 B1; hereinafter, “Yang”) and NHTSA Technical Report (See attached NPL; hereinafter, “NHTSA”). Anspach teaches methods, systems, and devices for analyzing a value of a vehicle and generating a value report including different highlights such as no indicator for odometer rollback. Yang teaches a system for calculating a used car price using a standard price. Yang also teaches a factor using “average lifetime mileage” and calculating vehicle value using various factors including average lifetime mileage. NHTSA discloses a preliminary report for the incidence rate of odometer fraud. NHTSA also discloses providing the price that was paid for the vehicle after the odometer was rolled back and the fraudulent odometer mileage. In addition, NHTSA discloses estimating an increased price consumers pay for odometer rollback at the time they purchase a vehicle: the difference between the inflated prices that consumers actually paid for the rolled-back vehicles and the prices they would have been willing to pay if they had known the true mileage. However, Anspach in view of Yang and NHTSA fails to disclose “determining an anticipated remaining lifetime mileage of the vehicle at the time of purchase of the vehicle based on the fraudulent odometer mileage and a maximum anticipated final lifetime mileage; determining a dollar residual remaining usage value available at the time of purchase of the vehicle based on the anticipated remaining lifetime mileage of the vehicles and a true remaining lifetime mileage at the time of purchase of the vehicle, the true remaining lifetime mileage based on a true mileage of the vehicle and the maximum anticipated final lifetime mileage; and determining total financial loss based on the dollar residual remaining usage value and the price of the vehicle paid by the buyer” as recited in Claim 1. As a result, neither alone nor in combination, do the references teach the limitations described above.
Examiner concludes that the references mentioned above, alone or in combination, fail to teach independent claim 1, in its entirety.
By virtue of their dependence on novel/non-obvious claim 1, claims 2-20 are novel/non-obvious, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYAR M KYU whose telephone number is (571)272-3419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/T.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628