DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 37 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 37 is cancelled and claim 37 is also a newly added claim, it can’t be two Claim 37s.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 3, 5, 8, 10 – 12, 15 – 17, 23, 25, 28, 29, and 35 - 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One
The claims are directed to a method (claims 1 - 3, 5, 8, 10 - 11, 28, 29, 35, 37, and 38) and a system with structural components (claims 12, 15 - 17, 23, 25,). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
As to claim 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
c) evaluating the driving behavior based upon the driving data using a 2D membership function that maps the driving data and the context data to a driving score, and based upon the context data, wherein said step c) includes comparing the driving data to a numerical standard and includes altering the numerical standard by multiplying it by a context factor derived from the 2D membership function
For example, a human mentally compares a driver’s speed to a standard and adjusts that standard based on road conditions before evaluating the driver’s behavior.
d) calculating an insurance premium based upon said step c).
For example, a human calculate an insurance premium based on the driver’s behavioral patterns (i.e. risky drivers will pay a high insurance premium).
whereby the contextual alteration using the 2D membership function reduces false-positive penalties in the driving score that would otherwise occur under a static numerical standard.
For example, a human mentally adjusts a driver’s score based on contextual information rather than a fixed rule
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a) receiving in a computer driving data indicating driving behavior of a driver, wherein the driving data includes vehicle speed;
b) receiving in the computer context data indicating conditions in which the driving behavior occurred, wherein the context data includes at least one external context selected from the group consisting of vehicle class, vehicle mass, vehicle dimensions, and vehicle engine type
e) wherein the driver is one of a plurality of drivers, performing steps a) to d) for each of the plurality of drivers
transmitted over a network to a remote computer server
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites:
wherein the driving data is generated in real time by a plurality of sensors mounted in each vehicle, including accelerometers and a GNSS receiver, and transmitted over a network to a remote computer server configured to perform the evaluation for the plurality of drivers associated with both the first and second insurance companies without requiring separate computer systems for each insurance company
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim further recites a computer, plurality of sensors, each vehicle, accelerometers, GNSS receiver, remote computer server, and computer systems which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of driving data, 2D membership functions, and static numerical standard amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
a) receiving in a computer driving data indicating driving behavior of a driver, wherein the driving data includes vehicle speed;
b) receiving in the computer context data indicating conditions in which the driving behavior occurred, wherein the context data includes at least one external context selected from the group consisting of vehicle class, vehicle mass, vehicle dimensions, and vehicle engine type
e) wherein the driver is one of a plurality of drivers, performing steps a) to d) for each of the plurality of drivers
transmitted over a network to a remote computer server
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim further recites:
wherein the driving data is generated in real time by a plurality of sensors mounted in each vehicle, including accelerometers and a GNSS receiver, and transmitted over a network to a remote computer server configured to perform the evaluation for the plurality of drivers associated with both the first and second insurance companies without requiring separate computer systems for each insurance company
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
The claim further recites a computer, plurality of sensors, each vehicle, accelerometers, GNSS receiver, remote computer server, and computer systems which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of driving data, 2D membership functions, and static numerical standard amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 2,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The recitation of “wherein the driving data includes acceleration” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The recitation of “wherein the driving data includes acceleration” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 3,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The recitation of “wherein the driving data includes hard braking” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The recitation of “wherein the driving data includes hard braking” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 5,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The recitation of “wherein the driving data includes weather conditions” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The recitation of “wherein the driving data includes weather conditions” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 8,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The recitation of “wherein the driving data includes acceleration, and hard braking and wherein the context data includes weather conditions” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The recitation of “wherein the driving data includes acceleration, and hard braking and wherein the context data includes weather conditions” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 10,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 8, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
the step of monitoring driving behavior with a plurality of sensors in the vehicle of each of the plurality of first drivers and each of the plurality of second drivers to generate the driving data.
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding 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. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the step of monitoring driving behavior with a plurality of sensors in the vehicle of each of the plurality of first drivers and each of the plurality of second drivers to generate the driving data
are not sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of a sensor to perform the process steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer as a tool which does not provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 11,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 10, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
the step of transmitting the driving data from the vehicle of each of the plurality of first drivers and each of the plurality of second drivers to the computer
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the step of transmitting the driving data from the vehicle of each of the plurality of first drivers and each of the plurality of second drivers to the computer
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 12,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the remote computer server configured to evaluate the driving behavior using a 2D membership function that maps the driving data and the context data to a driving score.
For example, a human mentally adjusts a driver’s score based on contextual information rather than a fixed rule
compare the driving data to a threshold and to reduce the threshold by multiplying the threshold by the context factor derived from the 2D membership function to increase a penalty to a driving score indicating an evaluation of the driving behavior, wherein the plurality of drivers includes a first plurality of drivers associated with a first insurance company and a second plurality of drivers associated with a second insurance company,
For example, a human mentally compares a driver’s speed to a threshold and adjusts that standard based on road conditions before evaluating the driver’s behavior and classifying the drivers into groups based on their behavior.
wherein the remote computer server is configured to modify the context factor for only the first plurality of drivers based upon a request from the first insurance company and to modify the context factor for the second plurality of drivers based upon a request from the second insurance company without requiring separate computer systems for each insurance company.
For example, a human mentally compares a driver’s speed to a threshold and adjusts that standard based on road conditions before evaluating the driver’s behavior
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a remote computer server configured to receive driving data indicating behavior of each of a plurality of drivers
driving data is transmitted over a network to the remote computer server
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites:
wherein the driving data is generated in real time by a plurality of sensors mounted in each vehicle (including accelerometers and a GNSS receiver), wherein the driving data includes acceleration, hard braking and speed
the remote computer server configured to receive configured to receive context data indicating conditions in which the driving behavior occurred and to determine a context factor based upon the conditions, the context data including weather conditions and at least one external context selected from the group of vehicle class, vehicle mass, vehicle dimensions, vehicle engine type, and vehicle health,
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim further recites a computer, plurality of sensors, each vehicle, accelerometers, GNSS receiver, remote computer server, and computer systems which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of driving data, 2D membership functions, and static numerical standard amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
a remote computer server configured to receive driving data indicating behavior of each of a plurality of drivers
driving data is transmitted over a network to the remote computer server
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim further recites:
wherein the driving data is generated in real time by a plurality of sensors mounted in each vehicle (including accelerometers and a GNSS receiver), wherein the driving data includes acceleration, hard braking and speed
the remote computer server configured to receive configured to receive context data indicating conditions in which the driving behavior occurred and to determine a context factor based upon the conditions, the context data including weather conditions and at least one external context selected from the group of vehicle class, vehicle mass, vehicle dimensions, vehicle engine type, and vehicle health,
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
The claim further recites a computer, plurality of sensors, each vehicle, accelerometers, GNSS receiver, remote computer server, and computer systems which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of driving data, 2D membership functions, and static numerical standard amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 15,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 12, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a plurality of sensors in the vehicle of each of the first plurality of drivers and each of the second plurality of drivers to generate the driving data based upon driving behavior.
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
a plurality of sensors in the vehicle of each of the first plurality of drivers and each of the second plurality of drivers to generate the driving data based upon driving behavior.
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 16,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 10, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a transmitter configured to transmit the driving data from the vehicle of each of the first plurality of drivers and each of the second plurality of drivers to the computer.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
a transmitter configured to transmit the driving data from the vehicle of each of the first plurality of drivers and each of the second plurality of drivers to the computer.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 17,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
c) evaluating the driving data with the at least one computer to determine that a parking event has occurred; and
d) determining in the at least one computer which one of a plurality of parking event types has occurred, wherein the determination is based upon the driving data including speed and heading information over time, wherein the plurality of parking types includes parallel, reverse parallel, forward perpendicular and reverse perpendicular
e) determining that a reverse parallel parking event has occurred based upon said steps a)-d);
f) after steps a)-d), repeating steps a)-d);
g) determining that a forward perpendicular parking event has occurred based upon said step e);
h) calculating an insurance premium based upon said steps e) and g);
i) calculating a distance dl as a Euclidean distance between a start point and an end point;
j) calculating a distance d2 as a sum of piecewise distances between a plurality of intermediate points between the start point and the end point;
k) comparing dl to d2;
l) performing said step d) based upon step k); and
m) determining that a parallel parking event has occurred based upon a determination in said step k) that d2 sufficiently exceeds d1
For example, a human mentally compares a driver’s speed to a threshold and adjusts that standard based on road conditions before evaluating the driver’s behavior and classifying the drivers into groups based on their behavior.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a) gathering driving data with accelerometers and a GNSS receiver, wherein the GNSS receiver and accelerometers provide continuous speed and heading data streams processed in real time by at least one computer;
b) receiving in at least one computer the driving data from a vehicle being driven by a driver;
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites a computer, plurality of sensors, each vehicle, accelerometers, GNSS receiver, remote computer server, and computer systems which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of driving data and Euclidean distance amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
a) gathering driving data with accelerometers and a GNSS receiver, wherein the GNSS receiver and accelerometers provide continuous speed and heading data streams processed in real time by at least one computer;
b) receiving in at least one computer the driving data from a vehicle being driven by a driver;
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim further recites a computer, plurality of sensors, each vehicle, accelerometers, GNSS receiver, remote computer server, and computer systems which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of driving data and Euclidean distance amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 23,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the context factor is reduced based upon how many types of the conditions of rain, snow, fog and ice currently exist.
For example, a human mentally compares a driver’s speed to a threshold and adjusts that standard based on conditions.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception
As to claim 25,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the computer is configured to calculate an insurance premium based upon the comparison.
For example, a human mentally organizes data based on the comparison.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception
As to claim 28,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
e) determining a context factor based upon the context data; and
f) altering the numerical standard by based upon the context factor.
For example, a human mentally adjusts a standard based on contextual information rather than a fixed rule
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception
As to claim 29,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
step f) includes multiplying the numerical standard by the context factor.
For example, a human mentally organizes data based on the comparison.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception
As to claim 35,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
c) further includes altering the numeral standard based upon the context data for only the plurality of second drivers based upon a request by the second insurance company.
For example, a human mentally adjusts a standard based on contextual information rather than a fixed rule
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception
As to claim 35,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
c) further includes altering the numeral standard based upon the context data for only the plurality of second drivers based upon a request by the second insurance company.
For example, a human mentally adjusts a standard based on contextual information rather than a fixed rule
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception
As to claim 38,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
PNG
media_image1.png
184
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
118
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover Mathematical Concepts. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception
As to claim 37,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the context factor derived from the context data is used to dynamically adjust at least one of the parameters δ X and δ_y of the 2D membership function prior to outputting the over speed score
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover Mathematical Concepts. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The newly added limitations still do not overcome the 101 rejection. The steps in the claims can be completed by a mental process and/or generic computer components. Additionally, the steps in the claims do not describe and improvement of technology in any way.
The applicant argues:
Amended independent claims 1 and 12 are not directed to a mental process (Step 2A, Prong One). They require real-time generation of driving data by accelerometers and GNSS receivers in each vehicle, network transmission to a shared remote computer server serving multiple insurance companies, and evaluation using a specific two-dimensional membership function that maps driving data and context data to a driving score according to the formula recited in new claims 36 and 37. These limitations cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pencil and paper.
Even if an abstract idea were recited, the claims integrate it into a practical application and
provide significantly more (Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B). The 2D membership function, with its explicit Gaussian formula and dynamic adjustment of parameters δ X and/or δ y using context data (new claim 37), improves the technical field of telematics-based driver scoring by reducing false-positive penalties and enabling scalable, multi-insurer processing on a single server- features not routine or conventional (see McRO, Thales, BASCOM, and Berkheimer). New dependent claims 36 and 37 reinforce this specific algorithmic improvement.
The examiner strongly disagrees. The claims remain directed to a mental process. Although the claims recite accelerometers, GNSS receivers, network transmission, and a remote computer server, the abstract idea is found in the evaluation of driving and context data according to a mathematical relationship to determine a driving score. Such evaluation, including observing information, applying criteria or a formula, and determining a result, constitutes a mental process that can be performed conceptually in the human mind. The mere use of computers or the asserted inability to practically process the claimed volume of data mentally does not remove the underlying concept from the mental-process grouping.
Further, the additional computer, sensor, and networking limitations merely obtain, transmit, and process the information used in the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant’s asserted reduction on false-positive penalties and scalability or multi-insurer processing relates to an improvement to the functioning of a computer, GNSS receiver, accelerometer, or network technology.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018))
It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The newly added limitations overcome the 103 Rejection and the 103 Rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached on 571-272-2589.. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights