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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Response filed on 12/1/2025.
Claims 1, 11 and 12 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 21 and 22 have been added.
Claim 3, 4, and 13-20 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, and 21-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: “first APIs,” “second APIs,” and “third APIs,” are incorrectly used as acronyms. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: “XML” is incorrectly used as an acronym. 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 1-2, 5-12, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Claim 1 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 12 recites a product (apparatus), which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
Claim 1 is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. Claim 1 recites a method for providing a real-time risk assessment for a person as a driver comprising: providing a system architecture comprising: a computer with a user interface configured to communicate via XML through one or more first APIs to a data platform; the data platform configured to communicate via XML through one or more second APIs with one or more state databases, wherein the data platform is further configured to communicate via one or more third APIs to obtain real-time telematics data from one or more vehicles driven by the person, wherein the real-time telematics data comprises one or more items of information from real-time driving recorded by an application being executed on a mobile phone; receiving, via the user interface, a request to determine a length of a licensure and to determine a risk score for the person; accessing, via the one of more second APIs and the one or more third APIs of the data platform, the one or more state databases and the real-time telematics data having data regarding the person associated with the licensure; interrogating, via XML through the one or more second APIs, a record associated with the person accessed from at least one of the one or more state databases; calculating, by the computer, a risk score based, at least in part, on the accessed real- time telematics data; if an indication of licensure is located in the record, determining the length of the indicated licensure and displaying, on the user interface, the length of the licensure in response to the indication of the licensure being located; and displaying, on the user interface, the risk score of the person, wherein the receiving, accessing, interrogating, calculating, determining, and displaying occurs in less than 10 seconds. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, as well as mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions, mores specifically, business relations. In addition, the claims are managing the interactions between people, specifically following rules or instructions. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of system, computer, user interface, one or more first APIs, one or more second APIs, one or more third APIs, XML, data platform, application, mobile phone, one or more state databases. The additional elements of a system, data platform, application, mobile phone, state databases, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of user interface are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of Graphical User Interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of first, second and third API are generally linking the use of the APIs to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of application programming interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of XML are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of Extensible Markup Language to store and transport data (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (system, computer, user interface, one or more first APIs, one or more second APIs, one or more third APIs, data platform, application, mobile phone, one or more state databases) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUIs and APIs to the judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUI’s and APIs to the judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 2 recites wherein at least one of the one or more state databases is a Motor Vehicle Record data store or a court database. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of data store or court database are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites wherein the indication of the licensure is one of a date of issuance of a license, a ticketed traffic violation, or an adjudication of a traffic violation. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra
Claim 6 recites further comprising: accessing a Commercial Driver's License (CDL) database for information about a CDL associated with the person; providing the information, from the CDL database, three states in which the person was issued the CDL. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the CDL database are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites wherein providing the length of the indicated licensure comprises providing a date of an event that indicates an earliest licensure and a data source from which the event was located. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 8 recites further comprising: determining a first length of licensure, from the record, crosses a threshold; if the first length of licensure crosses the threshold, providing the first length of licensure; if the first length of licensure does not cross the threshold, accessing a record cache to determine if a second record includes data regarding the person, if the second record includes the data regarding the person: interrogating the second record associated with the person; determining a second length of licensure; and if the second length of licensure crosses the threshold, providing the second length of licensure. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 9 recites further comprising: if the second length of licensure does not cross the threshold, accessing a financial database to locate a license used to apply for credit; determining a state from which the license was issued; and accessing a database associated with the state to search for the length of licensure. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the financial database are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 10 recites wherein the request is received from a third party. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 11 recites wherein the person interacts with a third party through an application, and wherein the receiving, accessing, interrogating, calculating, determining, and displaying occurs before the person exits the application. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the application are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03) Claim 12 recites an apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
Claim 12 recites a computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein, when the instructions are executed by a processor, the processor conducts a method for providing a real-time risk assessment for a person as a driver, the method comprising: receiving, via a user interface of a computer, a request to determine a length of a licensure and to determine a risk score for the person, wherein the request is communicated via XML through one or more first APIs to a data platform; accessing, via one of more second APIs and one or more third APIs of the data platform, one or more state databases and real-time telematics data having data regarding the person associated with the licensure, wherein the real-time telematics data comprises one or more items of information from real-time driving recorded by an application being executed on a mobile phone; interrogating, via XML through the one or more second APIs, a record associated with the person accessed from at least one of the one or more state databases; calculating, by the computer, a risk score based, at least in part, on the accessed real-time telematics data; if an indication of licensure is located in the record, determining the length of the indicated licensure and displaying, on the user interface, the length of the licensure in response to the indication of the licensure being located; and displaying, on the user interface, the risk score of the person, wherein less than 10 seconds elapses from a first time when the request is received to a second time when the length of the licensure and the risk score is provided. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, as well as mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions, mores specifically, business relations. In addition, the claims are managing the interactions between people, specifically following rules or instructions. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of system, computer, user interface, one or more first APIs, one or more second APIs, one or more third APIs, XML, data platform, application, mobile phone, telematics, and one or more state databases. The additional elements of a system, data platform, application, mobile phone, state databases, and telematics are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of user interface are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of Graphical User Interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of first, second and third APIs are generally linking the use of the APIs to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of application programming interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of XML are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of Extensible Markup Language to store and transport data (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (system, computer, user interface, one or more first APIs, one or more second APIs, one or more third APIs, data platform, application, mobile phone, one or more state databases) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUIs and APIs to the judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUI’s and APIs to the judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 21 recites further comprising: providing, by the computer, the risk score of the person to assess a risk of the person as an individual employee driver in a gig economy. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the computer are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 22 recites further comprising: providing, by the computer, the risk score of the person to assess a risk of the person as an individual employee driver in a gig economy. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12, and the additional elements of the computer are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 12 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant also argues that the claims are a practical application (Applicant arguments, pg. 9-10). Examiner disagrees. As noted in the above rejection, the additional elements of first, second and third APIs are generally linking the use of the APIs to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of application programming interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Further, the use of an application program interface and telematics has been well defined by the Courts as a “mental process.” Examples of product claims reciting mental processes include:
An application program interface for extracting and processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents – Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 113 USPQ2d at 1356;
A computer-implemented system for enabling anonymous loan shopping – Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695;
A computer readable medium containing program instructions for detecting fraud – CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d at 1692 n.1;
A post office for receiving and redistributing email messages on a computer network – Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1359;
A self-verifying voting system – Voter Verified, 887 F.3d at 1384-85, 126 USPQ2d at 1504;
• A wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid – Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1; and
Computer readable storage media comprising computer instructions to implement a method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization – Versata, 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 115 USPQ2d at 1685.
Therefore, it is reasonable, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “telematics,” that the abstract idea is “high level location monitoring,” the fact that this is performed by an app on a phone may be generic computer implementation.
Applicant also argues that the API interaction with XML for licensure and displaying is a practical application (Applicant arguments pg. 10-13), by “providing a real-time risk assessment for person based on real-time vehicle telematics”, and real-time risk assessment for a “gig economy scenario” (Pg. 13 & 14). Examiner disagrees. The focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. More specifically, the claims are limited to a business solution to a technical problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem.
Unlike Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (“Enfish”), where the claims were focused on a specific improvement in how the computer functioned, the claim here merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract concepts. Therefore, based on the similarity of the concept described in this claim to abstract idea identified by the courts, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: Yes). The court also emphasized that the "directed to" inquiry applies a filter to claims, when interpreted in view of the specification, based on whether their character as a whole is directed to a patent ineligible concept. The Federal Circuit cautioned against describing a claim at a high level of abstraction untethered from the language of the claim when determining the focus of the claimed invention.
Further, in Enfish, the court asked whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database), or instead on a process that qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. To make the determination of whether these claims are directed to an improvement in existing computer technology, the court looked to the teachings of the specification. Specifically, the court identified the specification's teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements.
The Federal Circuit in Enfish stated that certain claims directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software, are not necessarily abstract (Step 2A). The court specifically noted that some improvements in computer-related technology, such as chip architecture or an LED display, when appropriately claimed, are undoubtedly not abstract. Explaining that software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware can, the court noted that claims directed to software, as opposed to hardware, also are not inherently abstract.
Lastly, the claims do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed as whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The currently recited claims solve insurance risk, not a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693 /Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693