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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final, first office action on the merits.
Claims 1-4 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 02/26/2025, and 12/31/2025 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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. Limitations in claims 5 and 6 use “step of” but are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 limitations are:
Claim 1:
an information acquisition unit
a business information generation unit
an integrated information generation unit
Claim 2:
a lease information generation unit
a fund information generation unit
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claim 1:
an information acquisition unit
a business information generation unit
an integrated information generation unit
In Claim 2:
a lease information generation unit
a fund information generation unit
invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure(s), material(s), or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s) and to clearly link the structure(s), material(s), or acts to the function(s). Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any algorithm for “manages” or “controls.” For a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function MPEP 2181(II)(B). Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2 depend from claim 1. They do not cure the deficiencies presented above. Therefore, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for at least based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure (computer and algorithm) to perform the claimed function of “acquiring information related …. Storing the integrated information in a predetermined database .” The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function(s) because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-2 are directed to an apparatus (machine), Claim 3 is directed to a method (process), and Claim 4 is directed to a non-transitory (machine) Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-4 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claim 3 and 4 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. (Original) An information processing apparatus managing information for supporting a predetermined organization when the predetermined organization runs N businesses (N is an integer value equal to or larger than 2), and products or objects provided for services of the N businesses are common objects, the information processing apparatus comprising:
an information acquisition unit acquiring information related to at least a part of the N businesses and the objects;
a business information generation unit extracting pieces of information about a predetermined business from the information acquired, for the N businesses, respectively and independently, and generating first business information to N-th business information based on the pieces of information extracted for the N businesses, respectively;
an object information generation unit extracting information about the objects from the information acquired and generating object information based on the information extracted; and
an integrated information generation unit generating integrated information by associating the first business information to the N-th business information and the object information, storing the integrated information in a predetermined database, and managing the integrated information.
The Applicant's Specification titled " INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, METHOD, AND PROGRAM" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for determining whether or not there is an abnormality and correct data based on the received data".
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1 and 3-4 recites the abstract idea of performing vehicle sales management. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and (ii) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business offer of performing vehicle sales management based on received different data. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite performing vehicle sales management based on received different data. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Also, Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business offer of performing vehicle sales management. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claim 2 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 wherein the objects are vehicles;
the N businesses include a lease business of leasing the vehicles to a lessor and a fund with the vehicles leased to the lessor as a target;
the business information generation unit comprises:
a lease information generation unit extracting information related to the lease business from the information acquired and generating lease information as the first business information based on the information extracted; and
a fund information generation unit extracting information related to the fund from the information acquired and generating fund information as second business information based on the information extracted;
the object information generation unit extracts information related to the vehicles from the information acquired and generates vehicle information as the object information based on the information extracted; and
the integrated information generation unit generates the integrated information by associating the lease information, the fund information, and the vehicle information.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, and 3-4.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-4 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, and 3-4 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1 an information processing apparatus, an information acquisition unit, a business information generation unit, an object information generation unit, an integrated information generation unit
Claim 3 an information processing apparatus
Claim 4 a non-transitory computer readable medium, a computer, an information processing apparatus
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, 3, and 4 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of an information processing apparatus, an information acquisition unit, a business information generation unit, an object information generation unit, an integrated information generation unit, a computer. which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (fig. 3). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, 3, and 4 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps of performing vehicle sales management based on received different data and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention perform vehicle sales management based on received different data. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claim 2 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 7, and 8 respectively, for example but, these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 3, and 4, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-4 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1, 3, and 4 include an information processing apparatus, an information acquisition unit, a business information generation unit, an object information generation unit, an integrated information generation unit, a computer. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to performing vehicle sales management based on received different data.
Claims 1-4 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will be followed/begin by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be place to further explain a rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura Yasuhiro JP 2018063562 (hereinafter Nakamura).
Regarding Claim 1:
(Original) An information processing apparatus managing information for supporting a predetermined organization when the predetermined organization runs N businesses (N is an integer value equal to or larger than 2), and products or objects provided for services of the N businesses are common objects, the information processing apparatus comprising: (Nakamura [0010])
an information acquisition unit acquiring information related to at least a part of the N businesses and the objects; (Nakamura [0009], “vehicle history data collection/ retrieval system, a database (VIC DB) is provided in a vehicle information integration center (VIC) web site (VIC web site) for a plurality of provider sites (EN: N business) storing vehicle history data with common site-specific vehicle body numbers”. [0033], “various business systems … an automobil3e sales sites … as a key”.)
a business information generation unit extracting pieces of information about a predetermined business from the information acquired, for the N businesses, respectively and independently, and generating first business information to N-th business information based on the pieces of information extracted for the N businesses, respectively; (Nakamura [0038-0046], “analyzing site and the repair shop are reserved by the OBD2 described in the above embodiment. Every time an end user uses various business systems such as an estimation site, an automobile inspection site, and an automobile sales site, the information is accumulated in the VIC DB using the vehicle body number as a key …. 6), when the data does not exist in the VIC DB of the Web site 1 but exists in the affiliated site, the API defined by the Web site 1 and the "return destination URL" are designated from the "affiliated vehicle history data request unit" to the corresponding affiliated site to request the transmission of the data … ”. [0050], “extract the data )
an object information generation unit extracting information about the objects from the information acquired and generating object information based on the information extracted; and (EN: the objects here refer to vehicle as recited in claim 2. See Nakamura [0048-0053], “extract the data requested by the request parameter and transmit it …. Return he requested vehicle history data to the return destination”.)
an integrated information generation unit generating integrated information by associating the first business information to the N-th business information and the object information, storing the integrated information in a predetermined database, and managing the integrated information. (Nakamura claim 4, “information integration center in the business site selected by a vehicle information integration center; and This vehicle history data vehicle history data comprises a step ( 4) of instructing a database to read, a step (5) of extracting and returning the instructed data in the database, and a step (8) of returning the requested vehicle history data by a vehicle information integration center Web site”. [0017], “data are registered in the VIC DB (EN: predetermined database”.)
Regarding Claim 3:
Claim 3 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 3 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4:
Claim 4 is the non-transitory claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 4 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuhiro JP 2018063562 (hereinafter Nakamura) in view of Giroux et al. US 2009/0187512 (hereinafter Giroux).
Regarding Claim 2:
(Original) The information processing apparatus according to claim 1 but, does not specifically teach or disclose, however, Giroux, in the same field of endeavor teaches ,
wherein the objects are vehicles; the N businesses include a lease business of leasing the vehicles to a lessor and a fund with the vehicles leased to the lessor as a target; (Giroux Abstract: “The transferred asset is leased from the investing entity for a predetermined period”; [0003] “Cash flows received by the issuer 104 from the SUBI, i.e., lease payments from the underlying users and residual proceeds from the purchase or disposition of the underlying vehicles, are used to service the obligations of the issuer 104 under the notes”; [0009] “The TRAC may specify that, at the end of the predetermined period, if an actual residual value realized from the sale or disposition of the transferred assets is less than an estimated residual value of the transferred assets at an inception of a lease, a payment (the "TRAC") is made to the investing entity 105 in an amount corresponding to the difference between the estimated residual value and the actual residual value”; [0022]: “The sold portfolio constitutes the beneficial interest in a portfolio of leases, along with the cash flows and assets associated with the leases, that ultimately are to be sold to the SPE lessor 304. The collateral portfolio constitutes the beneficial interest in a portfolio of leases, along with the cash flows and assets associated with the leases, that ultimately are to be retained by the SPE lessee 303 and pledged to the SPE lessor 304 as security for SPE lessee 303's obligations under its lease with the SPE lessor 304”. [0024] “the investors 305 recognize a stream of income and the TRAC amount from the rent payments received from SPE 303 under the lease agreement”. [0025] “At step S404, the SPE lessor 304 leases the sold portfolio assets to the SPE lessee 303 for a predetermined period. The predetermined period may be based upon a useful economic life of the "sold portfolio" of assets”)
the business information generation unit comprises: a lease information generation unit extracting information related to the lease business from the information acquired and generating lease information as the first business information based on the information extracted; and a fund information generation unit extracting information related to the fund from the information acquired and generating fund information as second business information based on the information extracted; (Giroux [0002], “an asset-backed security ("ABS") is a security, such as a bond or a note, that is backed by a pool of assets, such as automobile loans, automobile leases, railcar leases, airplane leases, credit card receivables, or student loans… The AFC 101 is referred to as a "Servicer" because the AFC 101 usually is responsible for servicing and maintaining the leased vehicles from the proceeds of the ABS”. [0009], “The TRAC may specify that, at the end of the predetermined period, if an actual residual value realized from the sale or disposition of the transferred assets is less than an estimated residual value of the transferred assets at an inception of a lease, a payment (the "TRAC") is made to the investing entity 105 in an amount corresponding to the difference between the estimated residual value and the actual residual value”. Fig 4 [0023], “the finance company 301 capitalizes, or funds, the SPE lessee 303 with the sold portfolio, the collateral portfolio, and a cash accumulation/reserve account ("CAA"), known in the art. At step S403, the SPE lessee 303 sells the sold portfolio to the SPE lessor 304, but retains ownership of the collateral portfolio and the CAA. The SPE lessor 304 accordingly pays the SPE lessee 303 the sales price of the sold portfolio. To fund the purchase of the sold portfolio, the investors 305 make a contribution in aggregate equal to 100% of the sale price of the sold portfolio to the SPE lessor 304”. [0025], “At step S404, the SPE lessor 304 leases the sold portfolio assets to the SPE lessee 303 for a predetermined period. The predetermined period may be based upon a useful economic life of the "sold portfolio" of assets… the predetermined period is generally up to 80% of the useful economic life of the transferred assets… the FC 301 may provide indemnities and/or guarantees to the SPE lessor 304 in the event that the SPE lessee 303 is unable to meet its obligations under the lease. At step S405, the SPE lessee 303 may sublease the sold portfolio assets to user lessees 306, which may be consumers”. [0027], “The lease also may include a Terminal Rental Adjustment Clause ("TRAC provision”) … the sold portfolio assets have an estimated residual value, or "TRAC amount", that indicates the estimated value of the assets at the end of the lease. Because the investors 305 are the owners of the sold portfolio assets (via the SPE lessor 304), the investors rely upon this estimated residual value as an indicator of the value of their investment upon termination of the lease. The TRAC provision requires that a payment be made from the SPE lessee 303 to the SPE lessor 304 if the actual residual value of the sold portfolio assets at the end of the lease is less than the TRAC amount. The payment may be in an amount corresponding to the difference between the TRAC amount and the actual residual value and may be capped at a predetermined percentage of the price that the SPE lessor 304 paid to the SPE lessee 303 at inception for the sold portfolio assets”. [0028], “FIGS. 5 and 6A to 6D illustrate the reporting for a $100 million investment, according to an embodiment of the present invention… The Taxable Income column 502 represents income recorded for tax purposes, and reflects the front-loaded depreciation deductions allowable for tax purposes (see FIG. 6B)”)
the object information generation unit extracts information related to the vehicles from the information acquired and generates vehicle information as the object information based on the information extracted; and the integrated information generation unit generates the integrated information by associating the lease information, the fund information, and the vehicle information. (Giroux Fig 1, Fig 2, [0004], “The GAAP Income column 201 represents income recorded as per the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, known in the art, and the Taxable Income column 202 represents income recorded for tax purposes. GAAP, as referred to herein, is intended to include statutory accounting principles, as are known to those skilled in the art, for companies that are regulated, such as insurance companies”; Fig 4 [0009], “a Terminal Rental Adjustment Clause ("TRAC provision") is provided to further enhance investment attractiveness to investors. The TRAC provision allows the investors to receive the tax benefits of owning the assets while minimizing the risk of a change to the residual value of the assets. The TRAC may specify that, at the end of the predetermined period, if an actual residual value realized from the sale or disposition of the transferred assets is less than an estimated residual value of the transferred assets at an inception of a lease, a payment (the "TRAC") is made to the investing entity 105 in an amount corresponding to the difference between the estimated residual value and the actual residual value. Accordingly, if the actual residual value is greater than the estimated residual value at the end of the predetermined period, the SPE 103, or "transferor," is entitled to such excess”. [0024], “For accounting purposes, the investors 305 recognize a stream of income and the TRAC amount from the rent payments received from SPE 303 under the lease agreement”; [0025], “At step S404, the SPE lessor 304 leases the sold portfolio assets to the SPE lessee 303 for a predetermined period. The predetermined period may be based upon a useful economic life of the "sold portfolio" of assets… the predetermined period is generally up to 80% of the useful economic life of the transferred assets… the FC 301 may provide indemnities and/or guarantees to the SPE lessor 304 in the event that the SPE lessee 303 is unable to meet its obligations under the lease. At step S405, the SPE lessee 303 may sublease the sold portfolio assets to user lessees 306, which may be consumers”. [0026], “by continually re-investing the proceeds of asset sales at lease termination, no taxable events occur during the lease between the SPE lessor 304 and the SPE lessee 303 as a result of a termination or maturity of an underlying lease with an end user. Accordingly, the duration of the lease between the SPE lessor 304 and the SPE lessee 303 may be extended beyond the length of a typical retail lease to an end user or sublease, in this case, which generally is two to four years. A longer lease duration between the SPE lessor 304 and the SPE lessee 303 means an increase in time that the investors 305 are able to extend their DTLs, thereby enhancing the effects of their DTLs.”. Giroux [0027], “The lease also may include a Terminal Rental Adjustment Clause ("TRAC provision”) …the sold portfolio assets have an estimated residual value, or "TRAC amount", that indicates the estimated value of the assets at the end of the lease. Because the investors 305 are the owners of the sold portfolio assets (via the SPE lessor 304), the investors rely upon this estimated residual value as an indicator of the value of their investment upon termination of the lease. The TRAC provision requires that a payment be made from the SPE lessee 303 to the SPE lessor 304 if the actual residual value of the sold portfolio assets at the end of the lease is less than the TRAC amount. The payment may be in an amount corresponding to the difference between the TRAC amount and the actual residual value and may be capped at a predetermined percentage of the price that the SPE lessor 304 paid to the SPE lessee 303 at inception for the sold portfolio assets”. [0028], “FIGS. 5 and 6A to 6D illustrate the reporting for a $100 million investment… The GAAP Income column 501 represents income recorded as per the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, known in the art, and reflects the rental income received by the investor under the terms of the lease agreement (see FIG. 6A). The Taxable Income column 502 represents income recorded for tax purposes, and reflects the front-loaded depreciation deductions allowable for tax purposes (see FIG. 6B). The GAAP Taxes Recorded column 503 equals the GAAP Income column 501 multiplied by a tax rate of 36.95%, assuming a 35% federal tax rate and a 3% state tax rate (see FIG. 6C, dark-filled region). The Taxes Paid (Deductions Received) column 504 equals the Taxable Income column 502 multiplied by a tax rate of 36.95% (see FIG. 6C, light-filled region). The Deferred Tax Liability column 505 equals the GAAP Taxes Recorded column 503 minus the Taxes Paid column 504 and represents the DTL accumulated in each corresponding year. The Cumulative DTL column 506 represents the cumulative DTL for the corresponding year and each previous year (see FIG. 6D)”) Examiner interprets the GAAP, including but not limited to income recorded for tax purposes based on statutory accounting principes as teaching applicant’s profit/loss statement.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nakamura, to include the feature as taught by Giroux, in order to include a lease business leasing a vehicle(s) information, extract and generate least information, fund and the vehicle information Giroux figs. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Nakamura and Giroux, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
So et al. US 11,909,860: systems, methods, and program products for loaning digital assets and for depositing, holding and/or distributing collateral as a token in the form of digital assets on an underlying blockchain.
Onishi US 2022/0122153: Lease supporting apparatus.
Yi et al. US 2021/0319490: System and method for selling customized used car.
Kimura US 2021/0150556: Information processing method, program, and terminal.
Saito WO 2020/080537: Handling management device.
Van Der Berg US 2017/0091891: Integrated ride sharing system and method for fleet management systems.
Hallowell et al. US 2008/0140543: Systems and methods for vehicle lifecycle management.
Clayton et al. US 2008/0140688: Decision object for associating a plurality of business plans.
Siterman US 2002/0099618: Vehicle lease exchange method and system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
