Method and system for providing online automobile service comparison, service ranking, expenses comparison, price matching and purchasing the desired services. Based on provisional application 60912189 filed on April 17, 2007 and ID 1688557

• US 20090254454A1
• Filed: 04/08/2008
• Published: 10/08/2009
• Est. Priority Date: 04/08/2008
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Mohit Gupta
• Original Assignee: Mohit Gupta
• Inventors: GUPTA, MOHIT
• Application Number:
  US12/099,692
• Publication Number:
  US 20090254454A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/27
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0601 Electronic shopping [e-shopping]
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 99/00 Subject matter not provided for in other groups of this subclass

Abstract

A method and system for providing online automobile service comparison, service ranking, expense comparisons and online price matching are disclosed. The system provides online automobile service comparison, service ranking, expenses comparison and online price matching through a designated website accessible by a user via a communication network such as the Internet and/or intranet. The method includes the steps of providing optimized information by the system regarding available automobile service stations in a specific area, automobile services offered, customer feedback rankings, cost of desired services, displaying the required information to the user. The method also includes the steps to purchase the desired automobile services. The method also include a system through which service stations can online match their competitor prices based on a pre-defined value/percent for a specific service or plural of services to gain additional business.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating, analyzing, assimilating and collating preferred automobile service stations, said method comprising the steps of:

(a) receiving from a user a “

user'"'"'s list”

identifying at least one service desired to be performed by the user;

(b) receiving from the user one or more optimization criteria to be applied;

(c) generating a “

vendor list”

identifying the vendors who could provide the at least one service contained in the user'"'"'s list;

(d) for each of the vendor thus contained in the vendor list, applying the one or more optimization criteria received from the vendor list so as to obtain a score for each of the vendor;

(e) generating an “

optimized vendor list”

, the said “

optimized vendor list”

listing the vendors based on chronological order of their score; and

(f) displaying the optimized vendor list to the user, the said optimized vendor list containing at least the cost quoted by the vendor for performing the said at least one service contained in the user'"'"'s list.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one service includes automobile repair and automobile maintenance service.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one optimization criteria is selected from the group comprising the lowest total cost which optionally includes any tax payable, vendor user rating and feedback, earliest available service appointment and location of the desired vendor based on the distance from the user zip code or city.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein in step (b) plurality of optimization criteria are received from the user.

5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:

for each of the vendor thus contained in the vendor list, applying the plurality of the optimization criteria received from the vendor list so as to obtain plurality of scores, the plurality of scores including the score of the vendor for each of the individual optimization criteria and an average score for the vendor.

6. The method of claim 1, further comprising of

(a) generating the “

optimized vendor list”

, the said “

optimized vendor list”

listing the vendors based on chronological order of their average score.

(b) displaying the optimized vendor list to the user, the said optimized vendor list comprising at least the cost quoted by each of the vendor for performing the said at least one service contained in the user'"'"'s list and the average score of each of the vendor.

(c) receiving from the user weights for each of the plurality of optimization criteria a corresponding weight.

(d) applying the plurality of the optimization criteria received from the vendor list and the corresponding weight so as to obtain plurality of scores including the weighted score of the vendor for each of the individual optimization criteria and a weighted average score.

(e) generating the “

optimized vendor list”

, the said “

optimized vendor list”

listing the vendors based on chronological order of their weighted average score.

(f) displaying the optimize vendor list to the user, the said optimized vendor list comprising at least the cost quoted by each of the vendor for performing the said at feast one service contained in the user'"'"'s list and the weighted average score of each of the vendor.

(g) generating the “

optimized vendor list”

, the said “

optimized vendor list”

listing the vendors based on chronological order of their weighted score for a particular optimization criteria chosen by the user.

(h) displaying the optimized vendor list to the user, the said optimized vendor list comprising at least the cost quoted by each of the vendor for performing the said at least one service contained in the user'"'"'s list and the weighted score of each of the vendor for the particular optimization criteria chosen by the user.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein if the “

vendor list”

or the “

optimized vendor list”

thus generated does not contain even one vendor details, an “

optimization failure message”

is displayed to the user.

8. The method of claim 7, wherein if the optimization failure message is displayed to the user, the method optionally further comprises repeating step (a) to (f) after a predetermined amount of time.

9. The method of claim 7, wherein if the optimization failure message is displayed to the user, the method optionally further comprises providing an opportunity to modify the one of the optimization criteria thus chosen.

10. The method of claim 1, further comprising:

receiving one or more further optimization condition from the user after the optimized vendor list has been displayed to the user and regenerating a further optimized vendor list in response thereto.

12. The method of claim 7, wherein the at least two levels of pricing comprise a first level of pricing which is greater than a second level of pricing.

13. The method of claim 7, wherein the at least one condition specifies the criteria to be satisfied under which the system can utilize the second level of pricing.

14. The method of claim 7, wherein at least one of the said at least two pricing levels is uploaded by the service provider upon demand by the system.

11. A method for allowing a vendor of a service to control pricing of services provided by him to a online comparative shopping system, said method comprising the steps of:

(a) enabling the service provider to upload at feast two levels of pricing for the same service to be used by the system; and

(b) enabling the service provider to upload at least one condition under which at least one of the said pricing levels would be used by the system for being displayed to a prospective customer.

15. A method for evaluating, analyzing, assimilating and collating preferred automobile service stations, said method comprising the steps of:

(a) receiving from a user a “

user'"'"'s list”

identifying at least one service desired to be performed by the user;

(b) receiving from the user one or more optimization criteria to be applied;

(c) generating a “

vendor list”

identifying the vendors who could provide the at least one service contained in the user'"'"'s list;

(d) for each of the vendor thus contained in the vendor list, applying the one or more optimization criteria received from the vendor list so as to obtain a score for each of the vendor;

(e) generating a “

first optimized vendor list”

, the said “

first optimized vendor list”

listing the vendors based on chronological order of their score; and

(f) providing an opportunity to at least one vendor who is capable of providing the service and who has not been listed in the “

first optimized vendor list”

to change one or more of the price quoted or the terms and conditions of servicing;

(g) recalculating the score of the said at least one vendor who has changed one or more of the price quoted or the terms and conditions of servicing and based on the same, generating a “

second optimized vendor list”

; and

(h) displaying the second optimized vendor list to the user.

16. A online price matching computer program for providing a feature of online price matching of one service or plural services based on the predefined criteria provided by the vendor to reduce the price either by a fixed value or by a specified percent if the vendor does not have the lowest price as compared to other vendors and the steps to evaluate the current price of the vendor and comparing it with other vendor prices, verifying the criteria provided by the vendor for reducing the price either by a fixed number of by a fixed percentage, reducing the price of the vendor if the predefined criteria allows to reduce the price, comparing the new reduced price after the price has been reduced based on the predefined criteria, displaying the new reduced price, if the new price is equal or lower than the closest competitor price and reducing the price further if the new price is not lower or equal to the competitor price.