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 AIA .
Status of Claims
This communication is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 06/24/2026. Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15 and 17 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/28/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 without a practical application and significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (i.e., Step 1). In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method (i.e. a process). Claims 8-14 are directed to a system (i.e. a machine). Claims 15-20 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media (i.e. an article of manufacture). Thus, each of these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong One: Abstract Ideas
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Independent claim 1, analogous to independent claims 8 and 15 recites: A method comprising: receiving a service request for a vehicle; analyzing the vehicle, comprising: identifying a type of the vehicle; identifying a condition of the vehicle; and comparing the type of the vehicle and the condition of the vehicle to historical data to generate comparison information; generating a sourcing plan, wherein generating the sourcing plan comprises: monitoring, located at a vehicle service site, service bay usage, equipment availability, and technician availability to generate monitoring data; identifying one or more vehicle parts used for the service request based at least on the comparison information; and executing an automated sourcing function to source the one or more vehicle parts used for the service request; generating a schedule for the vehicle service site based at least on the monitoring data; and dynamically adjusting the schedule for the vehicle service site in response to changes in the monitoring data; and facilitating an order for the one or more vehicle parts as identified.
The limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under the abstract groupings of: Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As the claims discuss a system or method for a service request for a vehicle including a sourcing plan and facilitating an order for the one or more vehicle parts, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion (claim 1 recites for example, “receiving a service request for a vehicle”; “analyzing the vehicle”; “identifying a type of the vehicle”; “identifying a condition of the vehicle”; “comparing the type of the vehicle and the condition of the vehicle to historical data to generate comparison information”; “generating a sourcing plan”; “monitoring, located at a vehicle service site, service bay usage, equipment availability, and technician availability to generate monitoring data”; “identifying one or more vehicle parts used for the service request based at least on the comparison information”; “executing an automated sourcing function to source the one or more vehicle parts used for the service request”; “facilitating an order for the one or more vehicle parts as identified.”) Concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, analyzing, identifying, comparing, generating a plan, executing and facilitating data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where data interpretation is perceptible in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLCPatentLitig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Further, dependent claims add additional limitations, for example: (claims 2, 9 and 16) identifying, one or more of the type of the vehicle, a first location of the vehicle, or a second location of the vehicle; (claims 3, 10 and 17) equipment availability is determined; (claims 4, 11 and 18) determining a location of a technician; and optimizing the location of the technician based on one or more of a skill of the technician or a relative service need; (claims 5, 12 and 19) identifying a customer profile associated with the vehicle, wherein the customer profile provides: a level of flexibility of a customer for a service completion time; and a history of past services received by the vehicle or the customer; (claims 6, 13 and 20) providing delivery tracking information for a delivery of the one or more vehicle parts or equipment; monitoring a deviation from an expected delivery date; and prompting an update to a shop schedule based on the deviation from the expected delivery date; (claim 7) recommending the one or more vehicle parts based on one or more of a geographical location of the vehicle, a cost of the one or more vehicle parts or equipment, or a lead time for the one or more vehicle parts or the equipment, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements – (claim 1) computer; Internet-of-Things; real-time (claims 2, 9 and 16) camera (claims 3 and 17) tag reader (claims 8 and 15) processor(s), non-transitory computer-readable media. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea, as it adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The “receiving a service request for a vehicle; analyzing the vehicle, comprising: identifying a type of the vehicle; identifying a condition of the vehicle; and comparing the type of the vehicle and the condition of the vehicle to historical data to generate comparison information”; “monitoring, located at a vehicle service site, service bay usage, equipment availability, and technician availability“; identifying one or more vehicle parts used for the service request based at least on the comparison information” limitations describe data gathering. The Office has long considered data gathering to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to an abstract idea does not integrate the exception into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
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 discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to the computer components, these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See at least Applicants specification, and para 0037, recites: “The one or more processing device(s) 102 (FIG. 1B) may include one or more central processing units (CPUs), one or more microprocessors, one or more microcontrollers, one or more controllers, one or more complex instruction set computing (CISC) microprocessors, one or more reduced instruction set computing (RISC) microprocessors, one or more very long instruction word (VLIW) microprocessors, one or more graphics processor units (GPU), one or more digital signal processors, one or more application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), and/or any other type of processor or processing circuit capable of performing desired functions.” The specification spells out different generic equipment that might be applied using the concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of information access. Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computers. The use of such generic computers to receive or transmit data over a network has been identified as well understood, routine and conventional activity by the courts. With respect to the “receiving a service request for a vehicle; analyzing the vehicle, comprising: identifying a type of the vehicle; identifying a condition of the vehicle; and comparing the type of the vehicle and the condition of the vehicle to historical data to generate comparison information”; “monitoring, located at a vehicle service site, service bay usage, equipment availability, and technician availability“; identifying one or more vehicle parts used for the service request based at least on the comparison information” limitations, which amounts to mere data gathering or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(d). The legal precedent in Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicated that receipt and transmission of information over a computer network are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a generic manner, as is the case here. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities). Furthermore, claims 1-20 have been fully analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations fail to include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella et al. (US 2023/0079074 A1), hereinafter “Cella”, over Merg et al. (US 2018/0365621 A1), hereinafter “Merg”.
Regarding Claim 1, Cella teaches A computer-implemented method comprising:
... comparing ... to historical data to generate comparison information; (Cella, para 0094, The platform includes a resources data store that maintains resource inventory that indicates a plurality of fleet resources that can be assigned to a robotic fleet, and for each respective fleet resource, maintenance status data including a maintenance history, a predicted maintenance need, and a preventive maintenance schedule; and a maintenance management library of fleet resource maintenance requirements that facilitates determining maintenance workflows, service actions, and service parts);
generating a sourcing plan, wherein generating the sourcing plan comprises: (Cella, para 0002-0005, teaching orders for products fulfilled by manufacturers through supply chain; Cella para 0153, The system includes a material procurement system programmed to autonomously configure a futures contract for procurement of the required material; Further, Cella, para 2852, teaches an intelligent procurement module);
monitoring, using a plurality of Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices located at a vehicle service site, service bay usage, equipment availability, ... to generate real-time monitoring data; (Cella, para 0005, teaches Organizations have access to an almost unlimited amount of data. With the advent of smart connected devices, wearable technologies, the Internet of Things (IoT), and the like, the amount of data available to an organization that is planning, overseeing, managing and operating has increased dramatically. For example, in a manufacturing facility, warehouse or other operating environment, there may be hundreds to thousands of IoT sensors that provide metrics; See at least Cella, para 0351, teaches real time monitoring systems; Cella, para 0505, teaches the set of supply chain applications and demand management applications include vehicle management; Cella, para 0849, ordering replacement parts for a machine or item of equipment);
identifying one or more vehicle parts used for the service request based at least on the comparison information; (Cella, para 2852, teaches an intelligent procurement module; Cella, para 0505, teaches the set of supply chain applications and demand management applications include vehicle fleet management; Cella, para 0849, ordering replacement parts for a machine or item of equipment, may access the same data set about what parts have been replaced for a set of machines (Examiner notes historical data used in comparison)); executing an automated sourcing function to source the one or more vehicle parts used for the service request; and (Cella, para 2778, teaches service request handling; Cella, para 0849, ordering replacement parts for a machine or item of equipment);
generating a schedule for the vehicle service site based at least on the real-time monitoring data; and dynamically adjusting the schedule for the vehicle service site in response to changes in the real-time monitoring data; and (Cella teaches schedule throughout, see at least Cella, para 0097-0098, teaching fleet maintenance schedule includes adapting a maintenance schedule; See at least Cella, para 0351, teaches real time monitoring systems);
facilitating an order for the one or more vehicle parts as identified (Cella, para 0849, ordering replacement parts for a machine or item of equipment). Yet, Cella does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Merg teaches receiving a service request for a vehicle; analyzing the vehicle, comprising: identifying a type of the vehicle; identifying a condition of the vehicle; and ... the type of the vehicle and the condition of the vehicle ...and technician availability (Merg, Abstract, teaches receiving a plurality of vehicle service jobs to be performed and a technician assignment interface; Merg, Figure 10, teaches types of vehicles, for example 2006 Ford Taurus; 1997 Ford Crown Vic; 2007 Chevy Cobalt, and more; See at least Merg, para 0001, teaching symptoms reported by the vehicle owner and/or automated error indicators such as diagnostic codes, a repair shop employee may identify one or more service jobs to perform on the vehicle in order to repair the vehicle (Examiner notes condition of the vehicle). For instance... replace the vehicle's brake pads, fix a leaking tire, or service a vehicle's air conditioning system.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cella with receiving a service request for a vehicle; analyzing the vehicle, comprising: identifying a type of the vehicle; identifying a condition of the vehicle; and ... the type of the vehicle and the condition of the vehicle as taught by Merg with the motivation for performing a plurality of vehicle service jobs (Merg, para 0002). The Cella invention now incorporating the Merg invention, has all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Cella, now incorporating Merg, teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying, using a camera, one or more of the type of the vehicle, a first location of the vehicle, or a second location of the vehicle (Cella, para 0005, teaches Organizations have access to an almost unlimited amount of data. With the advent of smart connected devices including the Internet of Things (IoT), and the like, the amount of data available to an organization that is planning, overseeing, managing and operating a value chain network has increased dramatically ... For example, in a manufacturing facility or other operating environment, there may be hundreds to thousands of IoT sensors that provide metrics ...cameras and optical sensors; Cella, para 0608, teaches a location of the physical asset (Examiner notes vehicle)).
Regarding Claim 3, Cella, now incorporating Merg, teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the plurality of IoT devices comprise a tag reader; and the equipment availability is determined using the tag reader (See at least Cella, para 0005, teaches with the Internet of Things (IoT), and the like, the amount of data available to an organization that is planning, overseeing, managing and operating has increased dramatically. For example, in a manufacturing facility, warehouse or other operating environment, there may be hundreds to thousands of IoT sensors that provide metrics; Cella, para 0351, teaches RFID and other tag readers that are capable of data collection; para 0004, teaches orders for products fulfilled by manufacturers through a supply chain... operating production facilities or acting as resellers or distributors for others, made products available).
Regarding Claim 4, Cella, now incorporating Merg, teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a location of a technician; and optimizing the location of the technician based on one or more of a skill of the technician or a relative service need (Merg, teaches technicians throughout, see at least Merg, Abstract; See at least Cella, para 1006 and 1913, teaches an optimization system may be employed to optimize combinations of resources across a variety of fleet functions including workforce).
Regarding Claim 5, Cella, now incorporating Merg, teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a customer profile associated with the vehicle, wherein the customer profile provides: a level of flexibility of a customer for a service completion time; and a history of past services received by the vehicle or the customer (See at least Cella, para 0332, a customer profiling application (such as for profiling one or more demographic, psychographic, behavioral, economic, geographic, or other attributes of a set of customers, including based on historical purchasing data).
Regarding Claim 6, Cella, now incorporating Merg, teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: providing delivery tracking information for a delivery of the one or more vehicle parts or equipment; (Cella, para 1653, shipping and/or delivery tracking systems);
monitoring a deviation from an expected delivery date; and (Cella, para 0331, teaches an application for delay incidents (including network traffic, vehicle traffic, human worker traffic, and others, as well as combinations among them), product failure incidents, fraud incidents, misuse incidents, and many others); prompting an update to a shop schedule based on the deviation from the expected delivery date (Merg, throughout teaches scheduled jobs (See at least Merg, para 0027, teaches scheduled corresponding time slots for each of the service jobs); Merg, para 0099, provide equipment availability updates indicative of service equipment availability).
Regarding Claim 7, Cella, now incorporating Merg, teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: recommending the one or more vehicle parts based on one or more of a geographical location of the vehicle, a cost of the one or more vehicle parts or equipment, or a lead time for the one or more vehicle parts or the equipment (See at least Cella, para 0616, teaches different simulations for products including the model may be trained on certain combinations of routes (Examiner notes locations), contents, time of year, container type, and/or cost).
Regarding Claims 8 and 15, the claims are an obvious variant to claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise. Cella teaches a system comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer- readable media storing computing instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (See at least Cella, para 0053 and 0135, teaches processors programmed with a set of non-transitory computer-readable instructions; Cella, para 0137, teaches processors programmed with a set of non-transitory computer-readable instructions).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the claims recite analogous limitations to claim 2 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the claims recite analogous limitations to claim 3 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the claims recite analogous limitations to claim 4 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the claims recite analogous limitations to claim 5 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the claims recite analogous limitations to claim 6 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed on 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding 35 U.5.C. § 101 rejections: Examiner has updated the 101 rejection in light of the most recent claim amendments and maintains the 101 rejection. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive. With respect to the abstract idea, the claimed invention falls within at least the abstract groupings of both certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes as explained in the above 101 analysis. With respect to Applicant’s remarks on integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the computing elements (computer; Internet-of-Things devices; camera; tag reader; processor(s), real-time; non-transitory computer-readable media) are additional elements to perform the steps and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Examiner has reviewed Applicants claims and specification and has found only generic computing elements used in their ordinary capacity. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea; the computer elements merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Each step does no more than require a generic
computer to perform generic computer functions. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. In addition, the claims do not affect an improvement in any
other technology or technical field. The specification spells out different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using the concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of information access. Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer(s). Therefore, Applicants remarks are found unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the 101 rejection with respect to these and all depending claims unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections. With respect to the prior art rejections, Applicants arguments have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive. Examiner has updated the rejections in light of the most recent claim amendments with the Cella and Merg references.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Therefore, Applicants remarks are found unpersuasive and Examiner has updated maintains the 103 rejections for all claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA R NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. 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.
/R.R.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights