DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to applicant’s amendments to and response for Application #19/448,797, filed on 06/30/2026.
Claims 1-20 are now pending and have been examined.
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 non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
Per Step 1 of the analysis, the independent claims are analyzed to determine if they are directed to statutory subject matter. Claim 1 claims a method, or process. A process is a statutory category for patentability. Claim 8 claims a system comprising one or more processors and one or more memories. Therefore, the system is interpreted as an apparatus. An apparatus is a statutory category for patentability. Claim 15 claims one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Therefore, the media are interpreted as articles of manufacture. An article of manufacture is a statutory category for patentability. Further, the claim is in conformity with the Kappos Memorandum of 2010 regarding medium claims as it includes the phrase “non-transitory.”
Per Step 2A, Prong 1 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims recite an abstract idea or eligible subject matter. In the instant case, the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving vehicle data and one or more of a customer complaint or a technician finding, generating a complaint-finding signature based on both the vehicle data and the one or more of the customer complaint or the technician finding, searching historical data for one or more cases similar to the complaint-finding signature by using the complaint-finding signature to query the historical data for cases with a same or similar year, make, model, part, supplier, or repair diagnosis, generating a list of candidate parts based on the historical data and the complaint-finding signature, wherein the list of candidate parts comprises parts that have been successfully used in the one or more cases, generating a sourcing plan based on the list of candidate parts, facilitating a placement of an order based on the sourcing plan, identifying an estimated delivery time for an order, updating one or more of a shop schedule or a technician schedule based on the estimated delivery time for the order, and updating a scorecard for a part or supplier based on a repair outcome.” The claims are directed to an abstract idea, namely “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, the claims are directed to the activity of “commercial interactions, business activities” (see MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (II)). A shop or repair manager could receive vehicle data associated with a customer complaint or technician finding, generate a signature (which in the filed specification in such as [0141], [0168], and [0171]-[0172] is described as vehicle data obtained from the technician finding, customer complaint, or the vehicle information that would be used as a filter or query when looking up similar historical data), use the complaint-finding signature to query historical data using the signature to find similar data, generate a list of candidate parts from the historical data that have had success in the past, generate a sourcing plan, facilitate placement of an order based on the plan, identify an estimate for delivery time, update a technician or shop schedule based on the delivery time, and update a scorecard for a part or supplier. Current technician availability, bay occupancy, and other such data could be checked or verified in real time. A manager of a shop or technician would need to routinely perform these steps when managing repairs for multiple vehicles and customers and sometimes multiple locations. Parts that need to be ordered are identified based on data from the vehicle, customer, and technician. Parts are ordered. Schedules are determined and updated based on delivery times. Reliability can be noted for a part or supplier in such as a scorecard, a database, or other means of tracking reliability based on the delivery time, the repair, and other factors. Therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” specifically, “commercial interactions, business activities.” The claims secondarily recite a mental process. A repair or shop manager with access to the customer complaints or technician findings and a historical database could as a set of mental steps access vehicle data associated with a customer complaint or technician finding, generate a signature, search historical data using the signature as a query or filter to find similar data, generate a list of candidate parts based on identification of parts used in the past with success, generate a sourcing plan, facilitate placement of an order based on the plan, identify an estimate for delivery time, update a technician or shop schedule based on the delivery time, check on current availability of technicians or bays, and update a scorecard for a part or supplier.
Per Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements include the recitation of “one or more processors,” and “one or more…media storing instructions.” However, these components are considered generic recitations of technical elements which are recited at a high level of generality. These components are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The additional elements of the claims also include “tracking” of an estimated delivery time. However, this additional element is recited at a high level of generality and there is no detail at all as to how the delivery time is tracked and no recitation of any technical aspect of the tracking. Further, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known at the time of filing of the application to track a delivery time. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element brought in by amendment, “wherein generating the sourcing plan comprises analyzing live shop telemetry received from one or more Internet-of-Things devices located at a vehicle service site, and wherein the live shop telemetry comprises one or more of bay occupancy, technician availability, or tool usage,” is recited at a high level of generality and there is no detail as to what exactly the “live shop telemetry” is or how it is then used to create the sourcing plan. As known in the art, “live shop telemetry” could be sophisticated image analysis using technology but could also be other forms of live telemetry such as sensor data, collection and transmission of data from a scheduling processor that indicates availability, diagnostics or metrics from other devices that can detect availability, or location information such as the general whereabouts of a technician. Therefore, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known at the time of filing of the application to analyze live telemetry data for various purposes such as location, availability, and other metrics. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
Per Step 2B of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea by demonstrating 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 an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements include the recitation of “one or more processors,” and “one or more…media storing instructions.” However, these components are considered generic recitations of technical elements which are recited at a high level of generality. These components are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The additional elements of the claims also include “tracking” of an estimated delivery time. However, this additional element is recited at a high level of generality and there is no detail at all as to how the delivery time is tracked and no recitation of any technical aspect of the tracking. Further, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known at the time of filing of the application to track a delivery time. Therefore, the additional element is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. .
When considered as an ordered combination, the claims still are considered to be directed to an abstract idea. The claims the logical set of steps to access vehicle data associated with a customer complaint or technician finding, generate a signature, search historical data using the signature as a query or filter to find similar data, generate a list of candidate parts, generate a sourcing plan, facilitate placement of an order based on the plan, identify an estimate for delivery time, update a technician or shop schedule based on the delivery time, and update a scorecard for a part or supplier. Therefore, the ordered combination does not lead to a determination of significantly more.
When considering the dependent claims, claims 2-3 are considered part of the abstract idea as ranking or generating a confidence level could be done as part of the human activity or mental process. Claim 4 is considered part of the abstract idea as prompting a user to review a sourcing plan could be done as part of the commercial or business activity in collaboration with another user. Claim 5 is considered part of the abstract idea as part of analyzing the telemetry data, absent further detail. Claim 6 is considered part of the abstract idea. Claim 7 is considered part of the abstract idea, as the type of historical data analyzed does not change the analysis. The other dependent claims mirror those already discussed above.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. Vs. CLS Bank International et al., 2014 (please reference link to updated publicly available Alice memo at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf as well as the USPTO January 2019 Updated Patent Eligibility Guidance.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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(a) 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dagley, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0342790 A1 in view of Coard, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0012169 A1 and in further view of Thorley, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0272362 A1.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, Dagley teaches:
A computer-implemented method (system) (medium)… comprising:
receiving vehicle data and one or more of a customer complaint or a technician finding (see [0013], [0015], [0025]-[0026])
generating a complaint-finding signature based on the vehicle data and the one or more of the customer complaint or the technician finding (see [0025]-[0027], [0029], [0036], and [0046]-[0047]; the examiner notes that while the reference does not use the term “complaint finding signature,” the applicant’s filed specification describes this limitation in [0141], [0168], and [0171]-[0172] as such as a query or filter term, vehicle data, or technician finding then used to query or look up historical data)
searching historical data for one or more cases similar to the complaint-finding signature (see [0016], [0028], [0036], and [0099])
generating a list of candidate parts based on the historical data and the complaint-finding signature (see [0015]-[0016], [0031]-[0032], [0035], and [0093]-[0099]; the examiner notes that while the reference does not use the words “generating a list,” the reference clearly teaches in the cited portions the presentation of multiple candidate parts based on the historical data, the parts potentially used to address the need for a repair or replacement)
generating a sourcing plan based on the list of the candidate parts (see [0016], [0032], [0035], and [0093]-[0099])
facilitating placement of an order based on the sourcing plan (see [0015], [0032], [0035], and [0093]-[0099])
tracking an estimated delivery time for the order (see [0015], [0032], [0042], and [0093]-[0098])
updating one or more of a shop schedule or a technician schedule based on the estimated delivery time for the order (see [0042] and [0093]-[0098])
Dagley, however, does not appear to specify:
by using the complaint-finding signature to query the historical data for cases with a same or similar year, make, model, part, supplier, or repair diagnosis
wherein the list of candidate parts comprises parts that have been successfully used in the one or more cases
updating a scorecard for a part or supplier based on a repair outcome
Coard teaches:
by using the complaint-finding signature to query the historical data for cases with a same or similar year, make, model, part, supplier, or repair diagnosis (see [0008]-[0012], [0027]-[0034], [0038], and [0045]-[0047])
wherein the list of candidate parts comprises parts that have been successfully used in the one or more cases (see [0008]-[0012], [0027]-[0034], [0038], and especially [0045]-[0047])
updating a scorecard for a part or supplier based on a repair outcome (see at least [0046])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Coard with Dagley because Dagley already teaches ordering parts from suppliers from among multiple candidate parts, and using complaint-finding signature keywords and data points to query the historic database and identify successful repairs and parts would allow for a better measure of decisions for a sourcing and scheduling plan based on actual success with the same or similar associated information such as same or similar make, model, etc., and keeping and updating scores would allow for tracking of results-based performance of parts and/or suppliers, allowing for an optimized selection in future needs based on the past scores.
Dagley and Coard, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein generating the sourcing plan comprises analyzing live shop telemetry received from one or more IoT devices located at a vehicle service site, and wherein the live shop telemetry comprises one or more of bay occupancy, technician availability, and tool usage
Thorley teaches:
wherein generating the sourcing plan comprises analyzing live shop telemetry received from one or more IoT devices located at a vehicle service site, and wherein the live shop telemetry comprises one or more of bay occupancy, technician availability, and tool usage (see [0025]-[0032] and [0038], especially [0032] and [0038] in which networked user devices such as technician headsets or devices are used to collect actual service technician locations and availability; the examiner notes that while the devices are not described specifically as IoT devices, IoT devices are known in the art to be devices that are at a specific location and networked via the internet or similar network and able to collect and transmit data associated with the location, and therefore the devices of Thorley, are considered to meet the limitation of being an IoT device, absent further detail)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Thorley with Dagley and Coard because Dagley already teaches automatic scheduling of technicians and repair facilities based on availability data, and using live telemetry data would give more accurate data based on actual live current data at from devices at the facilities, which would be especially useful when parts can be sourced very quickly and the repair might take place in very short order.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, the combination of Dagley, Coard, and Thorley teaches:
the computer-implemented method of claim 1…
Coard further teaches:
ranking one or more parts on the list of the candidate parts based on success likelihoods, the historical data (see at least [0046]- the examiner notes that scoring is a form of ranking)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Coard with Dagley because Dagley already teaches ordering parts from suppliers from among multiple candidate parts, and keeping and updating scores would allow for tracking of results-based performance of parts and/or suppliers, allowing for an optimized selection in future needs based on the past scores.
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dagley, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0342790 A1 in view of Coard, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0012169 A1 and in further view of Thorley, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0272362 A1 and in further view of Suvarna, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2026/0003986 A1.
Regarding Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, and 17, the combination of Dagley, Coard, and Thorley teaches:
the computer-implemented method of claim 1…
Dagley, Coard, and Thorley, however, does not appear to specify:
generating a confidence level for the sourcing plan based on one or more of shop constraints, supplier data, fitment, success likelihoods, the historical data, or the estimated delivery time for the part
prompting a user to review the sourcing plan if the confidence level is below a threshold
Suvarna teaches:
generating a confidence level for the sourcing plan based on one or more of shop constraints, supplier data, fitment, success likelihoods, the historical data, or the estimated delivery time for the part and prompting a user to review the sourcing plan if the confidence level is below a threshold (see at least [0048]-[0049])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Suvarna with Dagley, Coard, and Thorley because Dagley already teaches ordering parts from suppliers from among multiple candidate parts, and Coard keeping and updating scores, and a confidence level for a sourcing plan would allow the user to understand the probability of success, especially when there is a lack of reliable suppliers, allowing the user to review and make an informed decision.
Claims 5, 7, 12, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dagley, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0342790 A1 in view of Coard, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0012169 A1 and in further view of Thorley, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0272362 A1 and in further view of Blankenship, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2025/0045709 A1.
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 18, the combination of Dagley, Coard, and Thorley teaches:
the computer-implemented method of claim 1…
Dagley, Coard, and Thorley, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein generating the sourcing plan further comprises:
analyzing live shop telemetry comprising one or more of bay occupancy, technician skill, technician availability, or tool usage
Blankenship further teaches:
wherein generating the sourcing plan further comprises:
analyzing live shop telemetry comprising one or more of bay occupancy, technician availability (see Abstract, [0005]-[0008], [0103], [0115], [0127], and [0136]; the examiner notes that the limitation “analyzing live shop telemetry,” absent further detail, is very broad and therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation is taken in the examination of the claim to include any kind of current telemetry data from a repair facility regarding availability used in the decision process)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Blankenship with Dagley, Coard, and Thorley because Dagley already teaches scheduling of technicians and facilities and ordering parts from suppliers, and analyzing current telemetry data to schedule a facility would allow for better service to the customer based on actual current data which would ensure the basis for the decision is based on current data which could be a vastly different situation than the normal overall historical data shows.
Regarding Claims 7, 14, and 20, the combination of Dagley, Coard, and Thorley teaches:
the computer-implemented method of claim 1…
Dagley, Coard, and Thorley however, does not appear to specify:
wherein the historical data comprises global data from a plurality of shops
Blankenship teaches:
wherein the historical data comprises global data from a plurality of shops (see Abstract, [0005]-[0008], [0103], [0115], [0127], and [0136])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bostick with Dagley, Coard, and Thorley because Dagley already teaches ordering parts from suppliers, and using global data from a plurality of shops top determine parts orders and repair scheduling would allow for better options and selection by taking account a larger basis for consideration.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dagley, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0342790 A1 in view of Coard, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0012169 A1 and in further view of Thorley, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0272362 A1 and in further view of Bostick, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0293886 A1.
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 19, the combination of Dagley, Coard, and Thorley teaches:
the computer-implemented method of claim 1…
Dagley, Coard, and Thorley, however, does not appear to specify:
facilitating placement of a back-up order based on one or more of the sourcing plan or an updated sourcing plan
Bostick teaches:
facilitating placement of a back-up order based on one or more of the sourcing plan or an updated sourcing plan (see at least Abstract and [0074])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bostick with Dagley, Coard, and Thorley because Dagley already teaches ordering parts from suppliers, and a back-up order would ensure timely delivery in case a first order is cancelled or delayed.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 101:
Regarding the applicant’s argument on pages 8-9 of the response that the additional element brought in by amendment, “wherein generating the sourcing plan comprises analyzing live shop telemetry received from one or more Internet-of-Things devices located at a vehicle service site, and wherein the live shop telemetry comprises one or more of bay occupancy, technician availability, or tool usage,” makes the claims patent eligible because it integrates the abstract idea into a practical application:
The examiner points out that as written the claim is recited at a high level of generality. There is no detail as to what exactly the “live shop telemetry” is or how it is then used to create the sourcing plan. As known in the art, “live telemetry” could be sophisticated image analysis using technology but could also be other forms of live telemetry that could be analyzed by a human operator or store manager such as sensor data, collection and transmission of data from a scheduling processor that indicates availability, diagnostics or metrics from other devices that can detect availability, or location information such as the general whereabouts of a technician. Further, the term “practical application” does not simply mean any practical use of an invention, but the MPEP 2106.04 (d) (1) specifically states that the a practical application would be considered such as “an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field.” Absent further detail, analyzing of “live shop telemetry data,” the telemetry data itself not even given any detail as to what it is much less what the analysis technique, and then how the results of the analysis are used to generate a sourcing plan” is not considered an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field.”
Regarding the applicant’s argument on pages 9-10 of the response that the ordered combination including the integration of IoT data, generating of a complaint-finding signature, querying historical data with that signature, generating candidate parts, and generating a sourcing plan is not well-understood and conventional computer activity in the field of vehicle service management, and therefore the claims should be patent eligible under Step 2B:
First of all, the Step 2B analysis is only of the elements which are not part of the abstract idea, and therefore not all elements are analyzed under Step 2B. Further, the field of “vehicle service management,” while it can involve technology, is not considered by the examiner to be a technical field, and the claims do not include an improvement to the technical field. As far as the elements not being conventional computer functioning, the examiner disagrees. The reasoning has been laid out above in the 101 rejection under the Step 2B analysis, including for the additional element brought in by amendment. The additional element brought in by amendment, “wherein generating the sourcing plan comprises analyzing live shop telemetry received from one or more Internet-of-Things devices located at a vehicle service site, and wherein the live shop telemetry comprises one or more of bay occupancy, technician availability, or tool usage,” is recited at a high level of generality and there is no detail as to what exactly the “live shop telemetry” is or how it is then used to create the sourcing plan. As known in the art, “live shop telemetry” could be sophisticated image analysis using technology but could also be other forms of live telemetry such as sensor data, collection and transmission of data from a scheduling processor that indicates availability, diagnostics or metrics from other devices that can detect availability, or location information such as the general whereabouts of a technician. Therefore, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known at the time of filing of the application to analyze live telemetry data for various purposes such as location, availability, and other metrics. Therefore, the additional element is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding the ordered combination, the combination would seem to recite the logical set of steps to access vehicle data associated with a customer complaint or technician finding, generate a signature, searching historical data using the signature as a query or filter to find similar data, generate a list of candidate parts, generate a sourcing plan, facilitate placement of an order based on the plan, identify an estimate for delivery time, update a technician or shop schedule based on the delivery time, and update a scorecard for a part or supplier. Analysis of live shop telemetry data would seem a logical step in a sourcing plan since shops generally schedule service and order parts based on technician availability, repair bay occupancy, and other such factors. Therefore, the ordered combination does not lead to a determination of significantly more
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is sustained.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 103
The arguments have been considered in light of the amendments to the claims, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant amendment(s) necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-4:30pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
