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 preliminary amendment filed on 6/27/2025.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
All references listed in the IDS dated 6/27/2025 have been considered.
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.
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:
“a component information storage configured to…” of Claim 1;
“a repair information storage configured to…” of Claim 1;
“a structure information acquisition unit configured to…” of Claim 1;
“a damage specifying unit configured to…” of Claim 1;
“a repair cost calculator configured to…” of Claim 1;
“a purchase cost calculator configured to…” of Claim 1;
“an information presenter configured to…” of Claim 1;
“a moving body information storage configured to…” of Claims 2-3;
“a type identification unit configured to…” of Claim 3; and
“a type specifying unit configured to…” of Claim 3.
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. These terms are interpreted in view of at least Paragraphs 0017, 0024-0027, 0080, and 0089 as filed; and Figs. 2-3. Summarily, each of these terms are interpreted as software as described in the original disclosure, which are stored on memory and executed by a processor of the “device” of Claim 1 (see, e.g., Paragraph 0024), said memory and processor likewise interpreted into Claim 1 via this 112(f) interpretation such that this device has structure capable of performing the claimed functions.
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 3-4 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.
Claim 3 contains the following limitations: “a type specifying unit configured to specify the type of the moving body when the type of the moving body is capable of being identified by the type identification unit” and “a type specifying unit configured to… specify the type of the moving body estimated from the type information and the moving body information and a similarity of the type when the type of the moving body is not capable of being identified.” These limitations, in conjunction, are indefinite for three reasons. Firstly, the conditions drafted into each of these limitations is similar but not identical, creating ambiguity as to whether there is an intended distinction between a type of moving body being “capable of being identified by the type identification unit” and “capable of being identified” (ie: generally, not necessarily limited to identification “by the type identification unit”). Secondly, the relationship between these limitations and the seemingly converse conditions respectively associated therewith is unclear as drafted, as both limitations recite the same function of “specify[ing] the type of the moving body.” The additional verbiage associated with this identically drafted function in the second limitation compounds this indefiniteness. Thirdly, the term “a similarity of the type of the moving body” is indefinite as a subjective term, wherein what might be considered “similar” may reasonably differ from individual to individual. For the purpose of this examination, these limitations will be interpreted as “a type specifying unit configured to specify the type of the moving body when the type of the moving body is capable of being identified by the type identification unit,” and “a type specifying unit configured to…estimate the type of moving body from the type information, the moving body information, and a level of correlation between the type information and the moving body information when the type of the moving body is not capable of being identified by the type identification unit” respectively. Claim 4 is rejected due to its dependence upon Claim 3.
Claim 3 contains the following limitation: “wherein the purchase cost calculator varies the purchase cost of the moving body according to the similarity of the type when the type of the moving body is not capable of being identified.” In this limitation, the term “the similarity of the type” is subjective in the same manner described above in relation to preceding limitations of Claim 3 (which include the term to which this term relates back). For the purposes of this examination, and based on the 112(b) determinations above, this limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the purchase cost calculator varies the purchase cost of the moving body when the type of the moving body is not capable of being identified.” Claim 4 is rejected due to its dependence upon Claim 3.
Claim 4 contains the limitations “the type specifying unit specifies the type of the moving body when the type identification unit acquires the first type information” and “the type specifying unit…specifies the type of the moving body and the similarity of the type based on an identification degree of the second type information when the type identification unit acquires the second type information,” which as drafted conflict with the limitation “a type specifying unit configured to specify the type of the moving body when the type of the moving body is capable of being identified by the type identification unit” of Claim 3 (upon which Claim 4 depends) by reciting a second condition for the same function. It is unclear as drafted how these two disparate conditions are to function together, e.g., it is unclear whether this condition of Claim 4 is meant to supplement the condition for this function already present in Claim 3, replace the condition present in Claim 3 (which would also violate 112(d) standards), or some other relationship. Due to this ambiguity, Examiner chooses not to give such a 112(d) rejection at present, but Applicant is now considered on notice of the underlying issue. For the purpose of this examination, and in light of the 112(b) interpretations of Claim 3 above, these limitations will be interpreted as “wherein the type of the moving body is capable of being identified by the type identification unit when the type specifying unit acquires the first type information” and “wherein the type of the moving body is not capable of being identified by the type identification unit when the type specifying unit does not acquire the first type information” respectively.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 1, 5, and 6, the limitations of storing component information related to a component of a moving body; storing repair information related to repair of the component; acquiring structure information of a predetermined moving body; specifying damage information of the component constituting the moving body based on the structure information and the component information of the component constituting the moving body; calculating a repair cost required for repairing the component constituting the moving body based on the damage information of the component and the repair information; calculating a purchase cost required for purchase of the moving body; presenting moving body-related information including the repair cost and the purchase cost; calculating a first purchase cost related to purchase of the moving body based on the repair cost and a second purchase cost related to the purchase of the moving body based on a reuse value of the component constituting the moving body; and presenting the moving body-related information including the purchase cost of the moving body in consideration of calculation results of the first purchase cost and the second purchase cost and the repair cost, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of storing component information related to a component of a moving body; storing repair information related to repair of the component; acquiring structure information of a predetermined moving body; specifying damage information of the component constituting the moving body based on the structure information and the component information of the component constituting the moving body; calculating a repair cost required for repairing the component constituting the moving body based on the damage information of the component and the repair information; calculating a purchase cost required for purchase of the moving body; presenting moving body-related information including the repair cost and the purchase cost; calculating a first purchase cost related to purchase of the moving body based on the repair cost and a second purchase cost related to the purchase of the moving body based on a reuse value of the component constituting the moving body; and presenting the moving body-related information including the purchase cost of the moving body in consideration of calculation results of the first purchase cost and the second purchase cost and the repair cost, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Additionally, the limitations of calculating a repair cost required for repairing the component constituting the moving body based on the damage information of the component and the repair information; calculating a purchase cost required for purchase of the moving body; and calculating a first purchase cost related to purchase of the moving body based on the repair cost and a second purchase cost related to the purchase of the moving body based on a reuse value of the component constituting the moving body, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts. For example, these limitations recite mathematical relationships and/or calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulae or equations, or mathematical calculations, it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer including storage, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing data executable by a computer, a component information storage, a moving body and a component thereof, a repair information storage, a structure information acquisition unit, a damage specifying unit, a repair cost calculator, a purchase cost calculator, and an information presenter. A computer including storage, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing data executable by a computer, a component information storage, a repair information storage, a structure information acquisition unit, a damage specifying unit, a repair cost calculator, a purchase cost calculator, and an information presenter, in the context of the claims as a whole, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). A moving body and a component thereof, in the context of the claims as a whole, amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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 judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claims, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4, describing various additional limitations to the device of Claim 1, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claim 1 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 2 discloses a moving body information storage (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) configured to store moving body information related to the moving body and market price information of the moving body (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); wherein the component information storage stores the component information related to the component constituting the moving body and market price information of the component constituting the moving body (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claim 1); the purchase cost calculator calculates the first purchase cost based on the reuse value of the moving body and the repair cost of the moving body with reference to the market price information of the moving body stored by the moving body information storage (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claim 1); and calculates the second purchase cost based on the reuse value of the component constituting the moving body and the scrapping cost of the moving body with reference to the market price information of the component stored by the component information storage (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claim 1), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 3 discloses a moving body information storage (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) configured to store moving body information related to the moving body (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); a type identification unit (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) configured to identify a type of the moving body based on type information of the moving body and the moving body information of the moving body stored by the moving body information storage (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); a type specifying unit (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) configured to specify the type of the moving body when the type of the moving body is capable of being identified by the type identification unit (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); specify the type of the moving body estimated from the type information and the moving body information and a similarity of the type when the type of the moving body is not capable of being identified (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and wherein the purchase cost calculator varies the purchase cost of the moving body according to the similarity of the type when the type of the moving body is not capable of being identified (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 4 discloses wherein the moving body is a damaged vehicle (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use); the type information includes first type information including vehicle inspection certificate information for identifying the type of the moving body and a vehicle registration number, and second type information including information on the vehicle type for estimating the type of the moving body, information on a vehicle body shape, and information on a vehicle category (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claim 3); the type specifying unit specifies the type of the moving body when the type identification unit acquires the first type information (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and specifies the type of the moving body and the similarity of the type based on an identification degree of the second type information when the type identification unit acquires the second type information (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyamoto (JP 7110463) (hereafter, “Miyamoto”).
Regarding Claims 1, 5, and 6, Miyamoto discloses:
a computer including storage (¶ 0045-0050-0051; Figs. 3-4; the server includes a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, a bus, an input/output interface, an output section, an input section, a storage unit, a communication unit, and a drive; the storage unit is composed of a hard disk, a DRAM, or the like, and stores various data);
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing data executable by a computer (¶ 0001, 0047, 0051, 0082-0085; the series of processes described above can be executed by hardware or by software; when a series of processes is executed by software, a program constituting the software is installed in a computer or the like from a network or a recording medium; the CPU executes various processes according to programs recorded in the ROM or programs loaded from the storage unit to the RAM);
a component information storage configured to store component information related to a component constituting a moving body (¶ 0050-0051, 0065; Figs. 3-4; the storage unit is composed of a hard disk, a DRAM, or the like, and stores various data; as shown in step ST33, the image information obtained by imaging the damaged vehicle C imaged in step ST32 is transmitted to the server, and the damage location identifying unit using the AI model identifies the damaged location; as shown in ST41, the repair fee is calculated by the server according to the damaged portion recognized in step ST33; as shown in step ST42, replacement parts used in repair are automatically retrieved);
a repair information storage configured to store repair information related to repair of the component (¶ 0050-0051, 0065; Figs. 3-4; the storage unit is composed of a hard disk, a DRAM, or the like, and stores various data; as shown in step ST42, replacement parts used in repair are automatically retrieved);
a structure information acquisition unit configured to acquire structure information of a predetermined moving body (¶ 0015, 0046, 0064; Figs. 3-4, 7; the server includes a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, a bus, an input/output interface, an output section, an input section, a storage unit, a communication unit, and a drive; Fig. 7 is a diagram showing a flow of acquiring damaged vehicle information in a server; first, as a premise, as shown in step ST31, damaged vehicle information is acquired for damaged vehicle C as follows; that is, as shown in step ST32, the user U operates the user terminal to capture an image of the damaged vehicle C as a subject; next, as shown in step ST33, the image information obtained by imaging the damaged vehicle C imaged in step ST32 is transmitted to the server);
a damage specifying unit configured to specify damage information of the component constituting the moving body based on the structure information and the component information of the component constituting the moving body stored by the component information storage unit (¶ 0017, 0046, 0053, 0064-0065, ; Figs. 3-4, 5, 8; the server includes a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, a bus, an input/output interface, an output section, an input section, a storage unit, a communication unit, and a drive; a damage identification AI model is stored in one area of the storage unit of the server; the damage location identifying unit using the AI model identifies the damaged location; Fig. 8 is a diagram showing the flow of calculating the degree of damage in the server; the server employs an AI image recognition model; this image recognition model, upon receiving the transmitted photographic information, specifies and outputs the location and degree of damage to the damaged vehicle included in the photographic image information as a subject);
a repair cost calculator configured to calculate a repair cost required for repairing the component constituting the moving body based on the damage information of the component specified by the damage specifying unit and the repair information stored by the repair information storage (¶ 0054-0055, 0065; Figs. 3-4, 5, 8; the damage degree determining unit calculates the repair cost of the damaged vehicle C based on the damage information; as shown in step ST41, the repair fee is calculated by the server according to the damaged portion recognized in step ST33; as shown in step ST42, replacement parts used in repair are automatically retrieved; next, as shown in step ST43, the repair cost is calculated based on the repair labor cost and replacement parts cost calculated in steps ST41 and S42);
a purchase cost calculator configured to calculate a purchase cost required for purchase of the moving body (¶ 0029-0032, 0054-0055, 0058-0063, 0066, 0069; Figs. 3-4, 5-6, 9-10; the residual value determining unit calculates a used car market price and the degree of damage; the residual value determining unit calculates a domestic used car market price as the used car market price; when the reuse method of the damaged vehicle C is classified into the repair sales method, the reuse method classification unit repairs the damaged vehicle C based on the domestic repair cost and the domestic used car market price, and sells the used car domestically; a repair sales method for overseas where the damaged car C is repaired overseas and sold as a used car; specifically, for example, the reuse method sorting unit selects, based on the repair cost for the domestic market and the used car market price for the domestic market, if the method for repairing and selling the damaged car C domestically does not generate a profit, the repair sales method for the overseas market is determined; as shown in step ST52, a unique algorithm is used to calculate the selling price (that is, residual value) after repair at each location);
an information presenter configured to present moving body-related information including the repair cost calculated by the repair cost calculator and the purchase cost calculated by the purchase cost calculator (¶ 0006, 0022, 0046, 0067, 0072; Figs. 1, 3-4; the reuse method of the damaged vehicle may be either repair sales method of repairing the damaged vehicle and selling the used vehicle, or a recycling method of recycling the damaged vehicle; the server includes a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, a bus, an input/output interface, an output section, an input section, a storage unit, a communication unit, and a drive; in step ST6, the user U is presented with the residual value of the damaged vehicle C; as a result, the user U can determine the residual value of the damaged vehicle C and then decide to sell the damaged vehicle C; the user U is given a purchase price (assessment price) of the damaged car C that takes into consideration various reuse methods such as domestic repair sales methods, overseas repair sales methods, resource recycling methods, and parts recycling methods; furthermore, the user U can be presented with the purchase price (assessment price) of the damaged vehicle C in which of various reuse methods);
wherein the purchase cost calculator calculates a first purchase cost related to purchase of the moving body based on the repair cost and a second purchase cost related to the purchase of the moving body based on a reuse value of the component constituting the moving body (¶ 0029-0032, 0054-0055, 0058-0063, 0066, 0069; Figs. 3-4, 5-6, 9-10; the residual value determining unit calculates a used car market price and the degree of damage; the residual value determining unit calculates a domestic used car market price as the used car market price; when the reuse method of the damaged vehicle C is classified into the repair sales method, the reuse method classification unit repairs the damaged vehicle C based on the domestic repair cost and the domestic used car market price, and sells the used car domestically; a repair sales method for overseas where the damaged car C is repaired overseas and sold as a used car; specifically, for example, the reuse method sorting unit selects, based on the repair cost for the domestic market and the used car market price for the domestic market, if the method for repairing and selling the damaged car C domestically does not generate a profit, the repair sales method for the overseas market is determined; as shown in step ST52, a unique algorithm is used to calculate the selling price (that is, residual value) after repair at each location); and
the information presenter presents the moving body-related information including the purchase cost of the moving body in consideration of calculation results of the first purchase cost and the second purchase cost and the repair cost ("¶ 0006, 0022, 0046, 0067, 0072; Figs. 1, 3-4; the reuse method of the damaged vehicle may be either repair sales method of repairing the damaged vehicle and selling the used vehicle, or a recycling method of recycling the damaged vehicle; the server includes a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, a bus, an input/output interface, an output section, an input section, a storage unit, a communication unit, and a drive; in step ST6, the user U is presented with the residual value of the damaged vehicle C; as a result, the user U can determine the residual value of the damaged vehicle C and then decide to sell the damaged vehicle C; the user U is given a purchase price (assessment price) of the damaged car C that takes into consideration various reuse methods such as domestic repair sales methods, overseas repair sales methods, resource recycling methods, and parts recycling methods; furthermore, the user U can be presented with the purchase price (assessment price) of the damaged vehicle C in which of various reuse methods").
Regarding Claim 2, Miyamoto discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Miyamoto additionally discloses:
a moving body information storage configured to store moving body information related to the moving body and market price information of the moving body (¶ 0006, 0020, 0035, 0050-0051, 0054-0055, 0065, 0079, 0087-0088; Figs. 3-4; the storage unit is composed of a hard disk, a DRAM, or the like, and stores various data; as shown in step ST33, the image information obtained by imaging the damaged vehicle C imaged in step ST32 is transmitted to the server, and the damage location identifying unit using the AI model identifies the damaged location; as shown in ST41, the repair fee is calculated by the server according to the damaged portion recognized in step ST33; as shown in step ST42, replacement parts used in repair are automatically retrieved; determining the degree of damage based on the repair cost residual value determining means for calculating a used car market price based on the vehicle information and determining a residual value based on the used car market price and the degree of damage; the following HOW, WHERE, and WHEN are included in the method of selling the damaged vehicle C of this embodiment at the highest price; for example, the residual value of a used car (market value when selling in the used car market) changes in conjunction with fluctuations in supply and demand; based on the results of the cartriage, based on the degree of damage and residual value of the damaged car C, if the repair sales method is adopted for the damaged car C, whether the repair sales method for the domestic market should be adopted or whether the repair sales method for the foreign market should be adopted; the residual value determining unit calculates a used car market price based on the vehicle information, and determines a residual value based on the used car market price and the degree of damage);
wherein the component information storage stores the component information related to the component constituting the moving body and market price information of the component constituting the moving body (¶ 0006, 0020, 0035, 0050-0051, 0054-0055, 0065, 0079, 0087-0088; Figs. 3-4; the storage unit is composed of a hard disk, a DRAM, or the like, and stores various data; as shown in step ST33, the image information obtained by imaging the damaged vehicle C imaged in step ST32 is transmitted to the server, and the damage location identifying unit using the AI model identifies the damaged location; as shown in ST41, the repair fee is calculated by the server according to the damaged portion recognized in step ST33; as shown in step ST42, replacement parts used in repair are automatically retrieved; determining the degree of damage based on the repair cost residual value determining means for calculating a used car market price based on the vehicle information and determining a residual value based on the used car market price and the degree of damage; the following HOW, WHERE, and WHEN are included in the method of selling the damaged vehicle C of this embodiment at the highest price; for example, the residual value of a used car (market value when selling in the used car market) changes in conjunction with fluctuations in supply and demand; based on the results of the cartriage, based on the degree of damage and residual value of the damaged car C, if the repair sales method is adopted for the damaged car C, whether the repair sales method for the domestic market should be adopted or whether the repair sales method for the foreign market should be adopted; the residual value determining unit calculates a used car market price based on the vehicle information, and determines a residual value based on the used car market price and the degree of damage);
the purchase cost calculator calculates the first purchase cost based on the reuse value of the moving body and the repair cost of the moving body with reference to the market price information of the moving body stored by the moving body information storage (¶ 0029-0032, 0054-0055, 0058-0063, 0066, 0069; Figs. 3-4, 5-6, 9-10; the residual value determining unit calculates a used car market price and the degree of damage; the residual value determining unit calculates a domestic used car market price as the used car market price; when the reuse method of the damaged vehicle C is classified into the repair sales method, the reuse method classification unit repairs the damaged vehicle C based on the domestic repair cost and the domestic used car market price, and sells the used car domestically; a repair sales method for overseas where the damaged car C is repaired overseas and sold as a used car; specifically, for example, the reuse method sorting unit selects, based on the repair cost for the domestic market and the used car market price for the domestic market, if the method for repairing and selling the damaged car C domestically does not generate a profit, the repair sales method for the overseas market is determined; as shown in step ST52, a unique algorithm is used to calculate the selling price (that is, residual value) after repair at each location); and
calculates the second purchase cost based on the reuse value of the component constituting the moving body and the scrapping cost of the moving body with reference to the market price information of the component stored by the component information storage (¶ 0029-0032, 0054-0055, 0058-0063, 0066, 0069; Figs. 3-4, 5-6, 9-10; the residual value determining unit calculates a used car market price and the degree of damage; the residual value determining unit calculates a domestic used car market price as the used car market price; when the reuse method of the damaged vehicle C is classified into the repair sales method, the reuse method classification unit repairs the damaged vehicle C based on the domestic repair cost and the domestic used car market price, and sells the used car domestically; a repair sales method for overseas where the damaged car C is repaired overseas and sold as a used car; specifically, for example, the reuse method sorting unit selects, based on the repair cost for the domestic market and the used car market price for the domestic market, if the method for repairing and selling the damaged car C domestically does not generate a profit, the repair sales method for the overseas market is determined; as shown in step ST52, a unique algorithm is used to calculate the selling price (that is, residual value) after repair at each location).
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 contain novel and non-obvious subject matter. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of novel and non-obvious subject matter: None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach or suggest the specific series of logical operations of Claim 3. In particular, the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the following limitation within the context of the claims as a whole:
a type identification unit configured to identify a type of the moving body based on type information of the moving body and the moving body information of the moving body stored by the moving body information storage; and
a type specifying unit configured to specify the type of the moving body when the type of the moving body is capable of being identified by the type identification unit, and
specify the type of the moving body estimated from the type information and the moving body information and a similarity of the type when the type of the moving body is not capable of being identified,
wherein the purchase cost calculator varies the purchase cost of the moving body according to the similarity of the type when the type of the moving body is not capable of being identified.
Claim 4 contains novel and non-obvious subject matter due to their dependence upon Claim 3.
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
JP 2018112999 – “Damage Determination Device, and Period Schedule Operation Device and Repair Maintenance Expense Operation Device using the Same,” Oyama, disclosing a system which identifies damage on products (including vehicles) and analyzes the sale of such items both with and without executing repairs thereon
US 10867327 – “System and Method for Electronic Processing of Vehicle Transactions Based on Image Detection of Vehicle License Plate,” Wilbert et al, disclosing a system which determines vehicle type information variously by way of license plate information and images of the vehicle, wherein the vehicle may be subsequently sold
Low et al, Choice of end-of-life product management strategy A case study in alternative telephone concepts, 1996 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment (ISEE), pgs. 112-117 (published 1/01/1996), disclosing techniques for considering various product disposal options, such as resale and recycling, including pricing considerations related thereto
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm 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, 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.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights