DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/10/2026 has been entered
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to communications filed on 4/10/2026. Claims 1, 8 and 15 were amended. No claims were canceled. No claims were added. Likewise, claims 1-20 remain pending for examination.
Title 35, U.S. Code
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea in claim 1 directed to:
- receiving metrics associated with a vehicle
- generating a deviation vector based on the metrics and a plurality of aggregated values corresponding to the metrics
- computing a driver update value based on the deviation vector and a plurality of model parameters
- computing a dot product of the deviation vector and the plurality of model parameters and applying a sigmoid squashing function to the dot product
- computing a driver score based on the driver update value, a previous score, and a learning rate, wherein computing the driver score comprises applying edge resistance such that a magnitude of a score update is reduced as the previous score approaches a boundary value
without significantly more.
The claimed invention in claim 1 is directed to abstract ideas, including mental processes such as observation, evaluation, computing / decision-making, and mathematical concepts such as pattern recognition, correlation, and predictive analysis. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(a), 2106.04(a)(2), 2106.04(d).
The claimed invention in claim 1 recites steps directed to a mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
The claimed invention in claim 1 recites limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.as drafted and covers performance of the limitations that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, computation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a person receiving metrics, performing various computation steps and ultimately computing a driver score.
For the claimed invention in claim 1, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 amounts to nothing more than pre-solution activity of metric gathering, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea and does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-7 are also rejected for the same reasons cited above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-20 are allowable over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot because the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 were amended by the Applicant to include new features not previously presented. Therefore, the scope of independent claims 1, 8 and 15, and their respective dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 were changed. However, another issue is now relevant to reject the claims in part.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANCIL H LITTLEJOHN JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 (CST).
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/MANCIL LITTLEJOHN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights