DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
The Preliminary Amendments filed on 16 June 2025 has been acknowledged and entered.
Claim 1 has been canceled.
New Claims 2-21 have been added.
Claims 2-21 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner. However, the Patent(s) and/or publication(s) cited in the office actions submitted in the information disclosure statement(s) have not been separately considered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 18 April 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 9-15 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 16-21 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage media (i.e., a manufacture). Therefore, claims 9-21 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1 (additional elements omitted) – Claims 9 and 16 recite:
storing/storing historical vehicle information for a plurality of vehicles, the historical vehicle information including at least one of: historical vehicle accident data, historical vehicle ownership data, or historical vehicle events data; and
receiving/receive, from [] a user, a vehicle request identifying a vehicle;
automatically processing/processing the vehicle request to identify a unique identifier data set associated with the vehicle;
initiating/initiating an electronic request to the vehicle data store using the unique identifier data set to request a first set of historical vehicle data that corresponds to the vehicle;
applying/applying one or more risk filters to the first set of historical vehicle data to generate a plurality of risk factors that represent relative risk associated with the vehicle;
weighting/weighting values of the first set of historical vehicle data, wherein weighting is determined by a predetermined risk model applied to retrieved data stored in the vehicle data store;
generating/generating a vehicle history score for the vehicle based on the plurality of risk factors and the weighted values, wherein the vehicle history score corresponds, at least in part, to a relative risk associated with the vehicle; and
generating/generating [] a standardized graphic view comprising a representation of an electronic indication of the vehicle history score, the electronic indication of the vehicle history score including a numerical value within a numerical range having a high threshold and a low threshold. The aforementioned limitations recite mathematical calculations which fall within the Mathematical Concept grouping, wherein the mathematical calculations may performed by a human with pen and paper and therefore qualifies as a “Mental Process” (including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions). Further, the claims fall within “Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” which includes teaching and following rules or instructions; and the abstract idea of assessing values is a Fundamental Economic Practice. Therefore the claim(s) as a whole fall within the Mathematical Concepts grouping, the Mental Process grouping, and the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of “a vehicle data store,” “an interface,” “a remote computing device,” “a vehicle scoring system,” and “a communication link” in claim 9, and the additional element of “a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium,” “instructions,” “a computer system,” “a vehicle data store,” “an interface,” “a remote computing device,” and “a communication link” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements, when analyzed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception).
Step 2B - As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when analyzed individually and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
As per Dependent Claims 10-11 and 17-18, the limitations merely narrow the previously recited abstract limitations. Dependent claims 10 and 17 recite the vehicle request comprises information for identifying the unique identifier data set associated with the vehicle. Dependent claims 11 and 18 recite wherein the vehicle history score is generated based on one or more of a quantity of owners in a vehicle history of the vehicle, a current mileage of the vehicle, accident records of the vehicle, title records of the vehicle, usage records of the vehicle, auction records of the vehicle, insurance records of the vehicle, and repossession records of the vehicle. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 10-11 and 17-18, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 12 recites, “generating data related to the vehicle to be rendered in the interface alongside the electronic indication” which is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 9. Similar to claim 9, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not add any additional elements to evaluate at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent Claims 13 and 19 recite “stores/stores one or more of vehicle emissions records, vehicle mileage records, vehicle type of use records, and vehicle theft and recovery records” which is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 9 and 16, respectively. Similar to claims 9 and 16, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not add any additional elements to evaluate at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent Claims 14 and 20 recite “determine/determining if the vehicle belongs in one of a plurality of segments of vehicles, wherein each segment of the plurality of segments is scored differently” which are further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 9 and 16, respectively. Similar to claims 2 and 10, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not add any additional elements to evaluate at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent Claim 15 and 21 recite “generate/generating an insurance risk valuation for the vehicle based at least in part on the vehicle history score” which are further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 2 and 10, respectively. Similar to claims 2 and 10, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not add any additional elements to evaluate at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent Claims 10-15 and 17-21 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 10-15 and 17-21, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea of the independent claims. The dependent claims recite no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Examiner’s Note:
The Examiner suggests adding the claim language from claim 2 directed to the applet since the additional element, specifically, the score tile, and code including an applet, preventing score tampering integrates the judicial exception into practical application by providing an overall technical improvement to the system.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,321,968. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application 19/176,947
Patent No. 12,321,968
2. (New) A vehicle scoring system for generating a vehicle risk assessment score, comprising:
a vehicle data store comprising historical vehicle information for a plurality of vehicles, the historical vehicle information including at least one of: historical vehicle accident data, historical vehicle ownership data, or historical vehicle events data; and
a vehicle score server associated with a score generator, the vehicle score server comprising one or more processors programmed to execute instructions that cause at least one processor of the one or more processors to:
receive, from an interface operated by a user at a remote computing device, a vehicle request identifying a vehicle, wherein the interface
includes code, the code including an applet directing the remote computing device to communicate with the vehicle score server;
automatically process the vehicle request to identify a unique identifier data set associated with the vehicle;
initiate an electronic request to the vehicle data store using the unique identifier data set to request a first set of historical vehicle data that corresponds to the vehicle;
apply one or more risk filters to the first set of historical vehicle data to generate a plurality of risk factors that represent relative risk associated with the vehicle;
weight values of the first set of historical vehicle data, wherein weighting is determined by a predetermined risk model applied to retrieved data stored in the vehicle data store;
generate a vehicle history score for the vehicle based on the plurality of risk factors and the weighted values, wherein the vehicle history score corresponds, at least in part, to a relative risk associated with the vehicle; and generate, for transmission from the vehicle scoring system to the remote computing device through a communication link, a standardized graphic view comprising a score tile including a representation of an electronic indication of the vehicle history score, the electronic indication configured to be rendered on a portion of the interface controlled by the vehicle scoring system, wherein the code, including the applet, is configured to complete the portion of the interface controlled by the vehicle scoring system, when executed, and prevent the vehicle history score from being tampered with.
3. (New) The vehicle scoring system of claim 2, wherein the vehicle request comprises information for identifying the unique identifier data set associated with the vehicle.
4. (New) The vehicle scoring system of claim 2, wherein the vehicle history score is generated based on one or more of a quantity of owners in a vehicle history of the vehicle, a current mileage of the vehicle, accident records of the vehicle, title records of the vehicle, usage records of the vehicle, auction records of the vehicle, insurance records of the vehicle, and repossession records of the vehicle.
5. (New) The vehicle scoring system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors further execute instructions that cause the at least one processor to: generate, for transmission from the vehicle scoring system to the remote computing device through the communication link, data related to the vehicle to be rendered in the interface alongside the electronic indication.
6. (New) The vehicle scoring system of claim 2, wherein the vehicle data store further stores one or more of: vehicle emissions records, vehicle mileage records, vehicle type of use records, or vehicle theft and recovery records.
7. (New) The vehicle scoring system of claim 2, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to determine if the vehicle belongs in one of a plurality of segments of vehicles, wherein each segment of the plurality of segments is scored differently.
8. (New) The vehicle scoring system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors further execute instructions that cause the at least one processor to: generate an insurance risk valuation for the vehicle based at least in part on the vehicle history score.
9. (New) A computer-implemented method for generating a vehicle risk assessment score, the computer-implemented method comprising:
storing, a vehicle data store comprising historical vehicle information for a plurality of vehicles, the historical vehicle information including at least one of: historical vehicle accident data, historical vehicle ownership data, or historical vehicle events data; receiving, from an interface operated by a user at a remote computing device, a vehicle request identifying a vehicle, wherein the interface includes code that, when executed, directs the remote computing device to a vehicle scoring system;
automatically processing the vehicle request to identify a unique identifier data set associated with the vehicle;
initiating an electronic request to the vehicle data store using the unique identifier data set to request a first set of historical vehicle data that corresponds to the vehicle;
applying one or more risk filters to the first set of historical vehicle data to generate a plurality of risk factors that represent relative risk associated with the vehicle;
weighting values of the first set of historical vehicle data, wherein weighting is determined by a predetermined risk model applied to retrieved data stored in the vehicle data store;
generating a vehicle history score for the vehicle based on the plurality of risk factors and the weighted values, wherein the vehicle history score corresponds, at least in part, to a relative risk associated with the vehicle; and generating, for transmission from the vehicle scoring system to the remote computing device through a communication link, a standardized graphic view comprising a score tile including a representation of an electronic indication of the vehicle history score, the electronic indication configured to be rendered on a portion of the interface controlled by the vehicle scoring system.
10. (New) The computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the vehicle request comprises information for identifying the unique identifier data set associated with the vehicle.
11. (New) The computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the vehicle history score is generated based on one or more of a quantity of owners in a vehicle history of the vehicle, a current mileage of the vehicle, accident records of the vehicle, title records of the vehicle, usage records of the vehicle, auction records of the vehicle, insurance records of the vehicle, and repossession records of the vehicle.
12. (New) The computer-implemented method of claim 9, further comprising:
generating, for transmission from the vehicle scoring system to the remote computing device through the communication link, data related to the vehicle to be rendered in the interface alongside the electronic indication.
13. (New) The computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the vehicle data store further stores one or more of: vehicle emissions records, vehicle mileage records, vehicle type of use records, or vehicle theft and recovery records.
14. (New) The computer-implemented method of claim 9, further comprising determining if the vehicle belongs in one of a plurality of segments of vehicles, wherein each segment of the plurality of segments is scored differently.
15. (New) The computer-implemented method of claim 9, further comprising generating a valuation for the vehicle based at least in part on the vehicle history score.
16. (New) A non-transitory, computer-readable storage media storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed by a computer system, configure the computer system to perform operations comprising:
storing in the computer system, a vehicle data store comprising historical vehicle information for a plurality of vehicles, the historical vehicle information including at least one of: historical vehicle accident data, historical vehicle ownership data, or historical vehicle events data;
receiving, from an interface operated by a user at a remote computing device, a vehicle request identifying a vehicle, wherein the interface includes code directing the remote computing device to a vehicle scoring system;
automatically processing the vehicle request to identify a unique identifier data set associated with the vehicle;
initiating an electronic request to the vehicle data store using the unique identifier data set to request a first set of historical vehicle data that corresponds to the vehicle;
applying one or more risk filters to the first set of historical vehicle data to generate a plurality of risk factors that represent relative risk associated with the vehicle;
weighting values of the first set of historical vehicle data, wherein weighting is determined by a predetermined risk model applied to retrieved data stored in the vehicle data store;
generating a vehicle history score for the vehicle based on the plurality of risk factors and the weighted values, wherein the vehicle history score corresponds, at least in part, to a relative risk associated with the vehicle; and generating, for transmission from the vehicle scoring system to the remote computing device through a communication link, a standardized graphic view comprising a score tile including a representation of an electronic indication of the vehicle history score, the electronic indication configured to be rendered on a portion of the interface controlled by the vehicle scoring system.
17. (New) The non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of claim 16, wherein the vehicle request comprises information for identifying the unique identifier data set associated with the vehicle.
18. (New) The non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of claim 16, wherein the vehicle history score is generated based on one or more of: a quantity of owners in a vehicle history of the vehicle, a current mileage of the vehicle, accident records of the vehicle, title records of the vehicle, usage records of the vehicle, auction records of the vehicle, insurance records of the vehicle, or repossession records of the vehicle.
1. A vehicle scoring system for generating a vehicle risk assessment score, comprising:
a vehicle data store comprising historical vehicle information for a plurality of vehicles, the historical vehicle information including at least one of: historical vehicle accident data, historical vehicle ownership data, or historical vehicle events data; and
a vehicle score server associated with a score generator, the vehicle score server comprising one or more processors programmed to execute instructions that cause at least one processor of the one or more processors to:
receive, from an interface operated by a user at a remote computing device, a vehicle request identifying a vehicle, wherein the interface is generated by a third-party system and includes code, the code including an applet directing the remote computing device to communicate with the vehicle score server;
automatically process the vehicle request to identify a unique identifier data set associated with the vehicle;
initiate an electronic request to the vehicle data store using the unique identifier data set to request a first set of historical vehicle data that corresponds to the vehicle;
apply one or more risk filters to the first set of historical vehicle data to generate a plurality of risk factors that represent relative risk associated with the vehicle;
assign a value to at least one risk factor of the plurality of risk factors;
weight values of the first set of historical vehicle data, wherein weighting is determined by a predetermined risk model applied to retrieved data stored in the vehicle data store;
generate a vehicle history score for the vehicle based on the plurality of risk factors and the weighted values, wherein the vehicle history score corresponds, at least in part, to a relative risk associated with the vehicle; and generate, for transmission from the vehicle scoring system to the remote computing device through a communication link, a standardized graphic view comprising a score tile including a representation of an electronic indication of the vehicle history score, the electronic indication configured to be rendered on a portion of the interface controlled by the vehicle scoring system, wherein the code, including the applet, is configured to complete the portion of the interface controlled by the vehicle scoring system, when executed, and prevent the vehicle history score from being tampered with.
2. The vehicle scoring system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle request comprises information for identifying the unique identifier data set associated with the vehicle.
3. The vehicle scoring system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle history score is generated based on one or more of a quantity of owners in a vehicle history of the vehicle, a current mileage of the vehicle, accident records of the vehicle, title records of the vehicle, usage records of the vehicle, auction records of the vehicle, insurance records of the vehicle, and repossession records of the vehicle.
4. The vehicle scoring system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further execute instructions that cause the at least one processor to: generate, for transmission from the vehicle scoring system to the remote computing device through the communication link, data related to the vehicle to be rendered in the interface alongside the electronic indication.
5. The vehicle scoring system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle data store further stores one or more of; vehicle emissions records, vehicle mileage records, vehicle type of use records, or vehicle theft and recovery records.
6. The vehicle scoring system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to determine if the vehicle belongs in one of a plurality of segments of vehicles, wherein each segment of the plurality of segments is scored differently.
7. The vehicle scoring system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further execute instructions that cause the at least one processor to; generate an insurance risk valuation for the vehicle based at least in part on the vehicle history score.
8. A computer-implemented method for generating a vehicle risk assessment score, the computer-implemented method comprising:
storing, a vehicle data store comprising historical vehicle information for a plurality of vehicles, the historical vehicle information including at least one of: historical vehicle accident data, historical vehicle ownership data, or historical vehicle events data; receiving, from an interface operated by a user at a remote computing device, a vehicle request identifying a vehicle, wherein the interface is generated by a third-party system and includes code comprising an applet that, when executed, directs the remote computing device to a vehicle scoring system;
automatically processing the vehicle request to identify a unique identifier data set associated with the vehicle;
initiating an electronic request to the vehicle data store using the unique identifier data set to request a first set of historical vehicle data that corresponds to the vehicle;
applying one or more risk filters to the first set of historical vehicle data to generate a plurality of risk factors that represent relative risk associated with the vehicle;
assigning a value to at least one risk factor of the plurality of risk factors;
weighting values of the first set of historical vehicle data, wherein weighting is determined by a predetermined risk model applied to retrieved data stored in the vehicle data store;
generating a vehicle history score for the vehicle based on the plurality of risk factors and the weighted values, wherein the vehicle history score corresponds, at least in part, to a relative risk associated with the vehicle; and generating, for transmission from the vehicle scoring system to the remote computing device through a communication link, a standardized graphic view comprising a score tile including a representation of an electronic indication of the vehicle history score, the electronic indication configured to be rendered on a portion of the interface controlled by the vehicle scoring system, wherein the code, including the applet, is configured to complete the portion of the interface controlled by the vehicle scoring system, when executed, and prevent the vehicle history score from being tampered with.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the vehicle request comprises information for identifying the unique identifier data set associated with the vehicle.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the vehicle history score is generated based on one or more of a quantity of owners in a vehicle history of the vehicle, a current mileage of the vehicle, accident records of the vehicle, title records of the vehicle, usage records of the vehicle, auction records of the vehicle, insurance records of the vehicle, and repossession records of the vehicle.
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising:
generating, for transmission from the vehicle scoring system to the remote computing device through the communication link, data related to the vehicle to be rendered in the interface alongside the electronic indication.
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the vehicle data store further stores one or more of: vehicle emissions records, vehicle mileage records, vehicle type of use records, or vehicle theft and recovery records.
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising determining if the vehicle belongs in one of a plurality of segments of vehicles, wherein each segment of the plurality of segments is scored differently.
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising generating a valuation for the vehicle based at least in part on the vehicle history score.
15. A non-transitory, computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a computer system, configure the computer system to perform operations comprising:
storing in the computer system, a vehicle data store comprising historical vehicle information for a plurality of vehicles, the historical vehicle information including at least one of: historical vehicle accident data, historical vehicle ownership data, or historical vehicle events data;
receiving, from an interface operated by a user at a remote computing device, a vehicle request identifying a vehicle, wherein the interface is generated by a third-party system and includes code, the code including an applet directing the remote computing device to a vehicle scoring system;
automatically processing the vehicle request to identify a unique identifier data set associated with the vehicle;
initiating an electronic request to the vehicle data store using the unique identifier data set to request a first set of historical vehicle data that corresponds to the vehicle;
applying one or more risk filters to the first set of historical vehicle data to generate a plurality of risk factors that represent relative risk associated with the vehicle;
assigning a value to at least one risk factor of the plurality of risk factors;
weighting values of the first set of historical vehicle data, wherein weighting is determined by a predetermined risk model applied to retrieved data stored in the vehicle data store;
generating a vehicle history score for the vehicle based on the plurality of risk factors and the weighted values, wherein the vehicle history score corresponds, at least in part, to a relative risk associated with the vehicle; and generating, for transmission from the vehicle scoring system to the remote computing device through a communication link, a standardized graphic view comprising a score tile including a representation of an electronic indication of the vehicle history score, the electronic indication configured to be rendered on a portion of the interface controlled by the vehicle scoring system, wherein the code, including the applet, is configured to complete the portion of the interface controlled by the vehicle scoring system, when executed, and prevent the vehicle history score from being tampered with.
16. The non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of claim 15, wherein the vehicle request comprises information for identifying the unique identifier data set associated with the vehicle.
17. The non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of claim 15, wherein the vehicle history score is generated based on one or more of: a quantity of owners in a vehicle history of the vehicle, a current mileage of the vehicle, accident records of the vehicle, title records of the vehicle, usage records of the vehicle, auction records of the vehicle, insurance records of the vehicle, or repossession records of the vehicle.
It is clear that all the elements of the application’s claims 2-18 are to be found in patent claims 1-17 (as the application’s claims 2-18 fully encompasses patent claims 1-17). The difference between the application’s claims 2-18 and the patent claims 1-17 lies in the fact that the patent claims includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus the invention of claims 1-17 of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application’s claims 2-18. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application claims 2-18 are anticipated by claims 1-17 of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from claims 1-17.
Prior Art Discussion
Claims 9 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 10-15 and 17-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claims 2-8, Applicant's additional element, specifically, the score tile, and code including an applet, preventing score tampering integrates the judicial exception into practical application by providing an overall technical improvement to the system.
Further, as per independent Claims 2, 10, and 18, the best prior art,
(1) Raines et al. (US Patent No. 7,596,512 B1), discloses a method for determining vehicle price values associated with vehicle history attributes which may reduce or increase the value, wherein the history attributes include: accident information, such as salvage title, junk title, flood damage, fire damage, police accident report and damage disclosure information; mileage information, such as odometer problems and actual mileage listings; title/registration events including government registration, taxi registration and commercial registration…and any other information relevant to the vehicle's history and the vehicle's value.
(2) Silversmith et al. (US Patent No. 7,421,322 B1) discloses a system or method for automatic identification of vehicle identification number based on obtaining vehicle
history information associated with a vehicle identification number (VIN). The vehicle history information system includes a VIN identification module adapted to identify at least one VIN in an electronic file, a database having vehicle history records relating to vehicle history of one or more vehicles, and a vehicle history report module adapted to retrieve vehicle history records
associated the VIN identified.
(3) Brooks (US PG Pub. 2006/0015425 A1) discloses a system and method for providing customizable investment tools used for computing "fair values" and measures of an asset's over/under valuation, the present valuation tools are also able to compute customized ratings represented by letter grades, numerical ratings and/or percentile rankings. In each case the valuation ratings will be determined based on a weighted valuation rating model;
(4) O’Hara et al. (US PG Pub. 2008/0301188 A1) discloses a method and system to track accomplishments and to compute relative rankings
However, neither Raines et al., Silverman et al., Brooks, nor O’Hara et al. discloses or fairly teaches:
generate, for transmission from the vehicle scoring system to the remote computing device through a communication link, a standardized graphic view comprising a score tile including a representation of an electronic indication of the vehicle history score, the electronic indication configured to be rendered on a portion of the interface controlled by the vehicle scoring system, wherein the code, including the applet, is configured to complete the portion of the interface controlled by the vehicle scoring system, when executed, and prevent the vehicle history score from being tampered with.
As per independent Claims 2, 9, and 16, the best Foreign prior art,
1) Hong et al. (KR 2004083205 A) discloses a car history information providing system and method thereof by providing the history information of the current vehicle number and also all vehicle numbers previously held by the vehicle in order to provide history information of all vehicle numbers owned by the vehicle from the first vehicle number to the current vehicle number.
However, Hong et al. does not disclose or fairly teach:
generate, for transmission from the vehicle scoring system to the remote computing device through a communication link, a standardized graphic view comprising a score tile including a representation of an electronic indication of the vehicle history score, the electronic indication configured to be rendered on a portion of the interface controlled by the vehicle scoring system, wherein the code, including the applet, is configured to complete the portion of the interface controlled by the vehicle scoring system, when executed, and prevent the vehicle history score from being tampered with.
As per independent Claims 2, 9, and 16, the best NPL prior art of record, “CONSUMER REPORTS FINDS AMERICAN-MADE VEHICLES CLOSE RELIABILITY GAP WITH EUROPEAN”, June 6, 2003, Berkshire.com, 2 pages (hereinafter referred to as “Consumer Reports”) discloses Consumer Reports surveyed its readers to obtain detailed information on hundreds of different makes and models. The 2002 survey yielded responses on nearly 480,000 vehicles spanning eight model years-1995 to 2002. Owners told CR about problems they had during the preceding 12 months in 14 areas, ranging from the electrical system to the engine, transmission, and more. Using that data, Consumer Reports predicts reliability for new models and gives detailed problem rates for older models. CR's statistical analysis for each manufacturer are based upon the number of problems per 100 vehicles.
However, CONSUMER REPORTS does not disclose or fairly teach:
generate, for transmission from the vehicle scoring system to the remote computing device through a communication link, a standardized graphic view comprising a score tile including a representation of an electronic indication of the vehicle history score, the electronic indication configured to be rendered on a portion of the interface controlled by the vehicle scoring system, wherein the code, including the applet, is configured to complete the portion of the interface controlled by the vehicle scoring system, when executed, and prevent the vehicle history score from being tampered with.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Sheinson et al. (US PG Pub. 20060129423 A1) discloses vehicle lead generation system using buyer criteria by determining a value for vehicle using the vehicle identifying information and the historical information, wholesale sales through auctions and at dealerships, vehicle condition information if provided, and determine an estimated value, estimated value range, or offer price for the vehicle using predetermined buyer criteria and the determined value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDA A. NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/F.A.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights