DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the application filed August 25, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
(MPEP § 2106)
Claims 1-20 are directed towards a method, a system, and a computer-readable medium. The claims are directed to a statutory category: a process, a machine, and article of manufacture as defined under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception – Abstract Idea
(MPEP § 2106.04)
Claim 1 recites a judicial exception because it is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, namely a commercial interaction involving financing and selecting products for a purchaser. The claim also recites a mental process because the evaluation and matching can practically be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
The abstract idea is recited by the following limitations:
"receiving purchaser information including at least one financing attribute associated with the purchaser of a vehicle" (collecting information);
"retrieving financial institution data comprising credit conditions associated with at least one financial institution" (obtaining financing criteria);
"accessing a vehicle inventory source comprising a plurality of available vehicles and associated vehicle information" (obtaining available product information);
"determining ... at least one eligible vehicle ... by evaluating the vehicle inventory source against matching criteria derived from the purchaser information and the credit conditions" (comparing information and selecting vehicles satisfying financing criteria); and
"transmitting eligible vehicle information to a user device" (communicating the results).
These limitations collectively describe the commercial practice of evaluating financing information and inventory information to determine vehicles that satisfy eligibility criteria and presenting those results to a purchaser. Such activities constitute commercial interactions and involve observations, evaluations, judgments, and comparisons that can be performed mentally or using pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
(MPEP § 2106.04(d))
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements consist of a generic computing device, vehicle inventory source, and user device performing their ordinary functions of receiving data, retrieving data, evaluating information, and transmitting results.
The claim does not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Nor does it recite a particular machine integral to the claimed invention, effect a transformation of an article, or apply the abstract idea in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a generic computer environment.
The determination of eligible vehicles merely automates the longstanding business practice of matching purchasers with vehicles based on financing qualifications. Likewise, transmitting the resulting vehicle information simply communicates the results of the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
(MPEP § 2106.05)
The additional elements, individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The recited computing device, vehicle inventory source, and user device are described at a high level of generality and perform only well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions, including:
receiving information;
retrieving stored information;
comparing data;
determining a result based on predetermined criteria; and
transmitting information to another device.
These generic computer operations merely automate the underlying abstract commercial practice and do not provide an inventive concept. The claim does not recite any specialized algorithm for generating the matching criteria, any improvement to database searching, inventory management, networking, or computer technology, or any unconventional computer architecture.
Viewed as an ordered combination, the additional elements simply implement the abstract idea on generic computer components and therefore do not transform the nature of the claim into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, the claim is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20
Independent claims 19 and 20 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-18
Dependent claims 2-18 merely set forth further embellishments to the abstract idea, and therefore do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-9, 13, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hankey et al (US 2008/0183616 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 20, Hankey discloses computer implemented method for identifying vehicles for a purchaser, the method comprising:
receiving purchaser information including at least one financing attribute associated with the purchaser of a vehicle (Hankey: Figure 2);
retrieving financial institution data comprising credit conditions associated with at least one financial institution (Hankey: paragraph [0037] - The user interface screen 302 can optionally also includes another section that contains customer's credit report information and other demographics);
accessing a vehicle inventory source comprising a plurality of available vehicles and associated vehicle information (Hankey: Figure 3);
determining, by a computing device, at least one eligible vehicle for the purchaser by evaluating the vehicle inventory source against matching criteria derived from the purchaser information and the credit conditions, wherein the at least one eligible vehicle meets the matching criteria; and (Hankey: paragraph [0040] - Finally, the deal structure panel 304 displays the maximum amount of financing the customer is permitted to obtain (i.e., "MAX OK TO FIN"). The amount permitted to be financed is based on several factors, such as, for example, the customer's credit score and the worthiness of the car that comes after taking into consideration the input values in the panel 308.);
transmitting eligible vehicle information to a user device (Hankey: Figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Hankey discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Hankey does not expressly disclose wherein evaluating the vehicle inventory source further comprises determining a vehicle value from a vehicle value provider using a vehicle identification number. However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The steps would be performed the same regardless of the type of input. This descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 70 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Regarding claim 4, Hankey discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Hankey does not expressly disclose wherein the vehicle inventory source is associated with one or more vehicle dealerships. However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The steps would be performed the same regardless of the type of source. This descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 70 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Regarding claim 5, Hankey discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Hankey does not expressly disclose wherein the vehicle inventory source is associated with one or more on-line vehicle selling collection websites. However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The steps would be performed the same regardless of the type of source. This descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 70 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Regarding claim 6, Hankey discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Hankey further discloses wherein the credit conditions comprise a credit worthiness score (Hankey: paragraph [0040] - The amount permitted to be financed is based on several factors, such as, for example, the customer's credit score and the worthiness of the car that comes after taking into consideration the input values in the panel 308).
Regarding claim 7, Hankey discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 6. Hankey further discloses wherein the credit worthiness score is determined by the at least one financial institution based upon a credit history associated with the purchaser. (Hankey: paragraph [0040] - The amount permitted to be financed is based on several factors, such as, for example, the customer's credit score and the worthiness of the car that comes after taking into consideration the input values in the panel 308).
Regarding claim 8, Hankey discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 7. Hankey does not expressly disclose wherein the credit history is retrieved from a credit bureau. However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The steps would be performed the same regardless of the type of source. This descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 70 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Regarding claim 9, Hankey discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 6. Hankey does not expressly disclose wherein the credit worthiness score is determined by one of age, education, income or job description by the financial institution. However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The steps would be performed the same regardless of the type of information. This descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 70 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Regarding claim 13, Hankey discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Hankey further discloses determining, for the at least one eligible vehicle, a maximum loan term based on a condition of the vehicle, and wherein determining a payment amount comprises determining a recurring payment amount based on a determined fixed rate interest and the maximum loan term (Hankey: paragraph [0027]-[0029] - including U.S. Patent Application incorporated by reference in Hankey) (loan parameters including amount, length, interest rate, and recurring amount that will maximize dealer profit are determined; amount and length that will maximize dealer profit are maximum figures rather than minimum figures).
Regarding claim 16, Hankey discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Hankey further discloses wherein the vehicle inventory source of the plurality of available vehicles and the associated vehicle information stores for each vehicle, at least one of: a unique vehicle identification number (VIN) a make of the vehicle; a model of the vehicle; a model year of the vehicle; a trim level of the vehicle; and mileage of the vehicle (Hankey: paragraph [0042] and Figure - model information and VIN are tracked).
Regarding claim 17, Hankey discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claim 1. Hankey further discloses periodically updating the vehicle inventory source to add vehicle inventory information of newly available vehicles and removing unavailable vehicles; and determining a book value for any newly added vehicles from at least one more 3rd party valuation services (Hankey: paragraph [0040]-[0045] - vehicle information is updated with respect to all available vehicles, paragraph [0040]-[0043] - e.g., Kelley Book Value; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Kelley Book Value would ordinarily be obtained through a networked third party valuation service).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In addition to the prior art cited above, the most pertinent prior art with regards to claims 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 18 includes:
PTO-892 - The emerging role of electronic marketplaces on the Internet
Donarski et al (US 2006/0143112 A1) teaches Dealer-located vehicle refinance system and method.
Colabucci (US 2009/0144188 A1) teaches APPARATUS, SYSTEM AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR A PAPERLESS CREDIT APPLICATION PROCESS.
Bird et al (US 2007/0011083 A1) teaches System and method of processing asset financing transactions.
Hoang et al (US 2008/0300988 A1) teaches WIRELESS ELECTRONIC VEHICLE WINDOW DISPLAY SYSTEM.
Post et al (US 2009/0313121 A1) teaches SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MARKETING VEHICLES RESIDING ON A DEALERSHIP LOT.
Grove et al (US 2004/0133479 A1) teaches System and method for submitting an offer to purchase over a network-based commerce facility.
Krautter et al (US 2006/0218084 A1) teaches Automated system and method for providing lease payment information to consumers via the internet.
Williams (US 2008/0071677 A1) teaches Method for retail financing.
Forrester et al (US 2015/0206234 A1) teaches SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR EXPORTING AUTO FINANCE INFORMATION.
Bird et al (US 2002/0116328 A1) teaches Automotive finance portal.
Walker et al (US 6,088,686 A) teaches System and method to performing on-line credit reviews and approvals.
Gill et al (US 4,736,294 A) teaches Data processing methods and apparatus for managing vehicle financing.
Loo et al (US 10,332,208 B1) teaches Total cost of vehicle ownership.
Bennett et al (US 7,542,922 B2) teaches Online purchasing system supporting sellers with affordability screening.
Shapley et al (US 10,163,156 B1) teaches Vehicle loan generation system: prequalified vehicle loan offer generation.
None of the cited references teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious wherein determining the at least one eligible vehicle comprises evaluating the vehicle inventory source against the matching criteria by: comparing a vehicle indicator provided in the purchaser information with a total amount to finance (TATF) determined from the credit conditions and with a determined value of a respective vehicle in the vehicle information; and identifying a subset of eligible vehicles meeting the matching criteria and complying with financing booking requirements for the at least one financial institution.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that when read as a whole, the claims would not have been obvious over the evidence obtained throughout prosecution. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that such features are present in the prior art, the combination of elements as recited in would not have been obvious over the evidence at hand because any combination of the evidence at hand would only result from a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claims using improper hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN G PALAVECINO whose telephone number is (571)270-1355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
KATHLEEN GAGE PALAVECINO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/KATHLEEN PALAVECINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights