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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
These claims recite duplicate word “that” in lines 12 and 14 respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Kaminski et al. (USPAP 2012/0209632) in view of Bloebaum et al. (USPAP 2009/0002147) in view of Amberg et al. (USPN 9,574,671) and in view of Miller et al. (USPAP 2015/0039348).
Re claims 2, 9 and 16: Kaminski teaches a method (and corresponding device and non-transitory computer-readable medium) for adjusting a car insurance policy, comprising:
receiving, via a network, driving data for a user, wherein the driving data includes sensor data gathered from one or more sensors associated with the user (0008-0009);
filtering the driving data, wherein filtering includes discarding portions of the driving data (0021-0022);
calculating, using the driving data, a driving score (0023); analyzing a policy associated with the user, wherein analyzing includes comparing the driving score to the policy associated with the user (0009, 0023, 0032).
Kaminski further teaches filtering including discarding certain data depending on the status of the applicant in the vehicle. For example, by determining if the applicant is the driver or simply a passenger
Kaminski does not explicitly teach, but Bloebaum teaches wherein filtering includes discarding portions of the driving data that are associated with at least one of indicia that the user is traveling via public transportation OR indicia that the user is not traveling on a vehicle, wherein the indicia that the user is traveling via public transportation includes an indicator that one or more wireless networks associated with the public transportation have been continuously detected by a mobile device associated with the user for a predefined period (0093, 0097, 0102, 0104, 0129, fig. 4), wherein the user is determined to be at least one of an operator of the public transportation OR a passenger in the public transportation (0013, 0015, 0021), using sensor of the mobile device that detects () signals originating from one or more wireless devices from other passengers located on a same public transportation as the user (0093, 0097, 0102, 0104, 0129, fig. 4) and manipulation of the mobile device relative to a route of the public transportation (0102, 0104, “GPS”, “routed through corridors”).
Because the data indicating that the user is traveling via a public transport and/or data indicating that the user is not traveling on a vehicle, and/or other data irrelevant data, can be considered to be data that simply indicate that the user is anybody other than the driver or operator of the vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to exclude ALL other data that do not indicate that the applicant is the driver (or operator) of the vehicle such as being a passenger in a public transport as disclosed in Bloebaum, for the obvious reason of accurately differentiating the operator of the public transport from non-operators.
Bloebaum does not explicit teach the use sensor that actively scans for and detect short range wireless signals originating for one or more wireless devices from other passengers located on the same public transportation as recited in the claims. However, Bloebaum explicitly teaches the mobile phone may use short distance communication mechanism such as Bluetooth (0129).
Amberg teaches the concept of using a sensor of a mobile device that actively scans for and detect short range wireless signals originating for one or more wireless devices from other sources (other passengers) in the same location (same public transportation) (col. 7, lines 40-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the ability to use such short-range wireless signals such as Bluetooth rather than the use of Doppler Shift system. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to use Bloebaum’s Bluetooth in the same manner as recited in Amberg’s with the same predicted result of determining whether the user is an operator or passenger in the public transportation (MPEP 2143: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Kaminski does not explicitly teach generating one or more communications based on the driving data and the driving score; and outputting, via the network, the one or more communications to a mobile device associated with the user.
Miller, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the concept of generating one or more communications based on the driving data and the driving score (0029-0030); and outputting, via the network, the one or more communications to a mobile device associated with the user (0029-0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kaminski, Bloebaum and Amberg combination to include these features as taught by Miller for the obvious reason of offering the driver the opportunity to receive quotation for vehicle insurance based on the driving score (Miller: 0029-0030).
Re claims 3, 10 and 17: Kaminski does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more communications are notifications to an application on a smartphone.
Miller teaches wherein the one or more communications are notifications to an application on a smartphone and/or emails to an email address associated with the user (0017, 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kaminski, Bloebaum and Amberg combination to include these features as taught by Miller for the obvious reason of presenting said communication via an application on the user’s smart phone, thereby enhancing the flexibility of the system/process (Miller: 0029-0030).
Re claims 4, 11 and 18: Kaminski does not explicitly teach, but Bloebaum further teaches wherein the user is determined as the passenger in the public transportation, and wherein the indicia that the user is traveling via public transportation includes an indicator that the user is traveling on the route of the public transportation route or an indicator that one or more wireless networks associated with public transportation have been continuously detected by the mobile device associated with the user for a predefined period or the indicia that the user is not traveling on the vehicle include an indicator that the portions of the driving data respectively lack predefined periods during which a velocity of the user exceeded a predefine velocity threshold (0093, 0097, 0102, 0129, fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kaminski to include this feature as taught by Bloebaum for the obvious reason of differentiating a driver of a vehicle from a passenger using mass transit.
Re claims 5, 12 and 19: Kaminski does not explicitly teach adjusting the policy associated with the user, wherein adjusting includes at least one of providing discounts or other products to the user, increasing fees associated with the policy associated with the user, or decreasing the fees associated with the policy associated with the user.
Miller teaches adjusting the policy associated with the user, wherein adjusting includes at least one of providing discounts or other products to the user, increasing fees associated with the policy associated with the user, or decreasing the fees associated with the policy associated with the user (0029-0030, 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kaminski, Bloebaum and Amberg combination to include these features as taught by Miller for the obvious reason of offering real time or near real time insurance rate adjustment based on driver’s driving score/behavior, thereby enhancing the flexibility of the system/process (Miller: 0029-0030).
Re claims 6, 13 and 20: Kaminski teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprise an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and/or a global positioning system (GPS) device (0020).
Re claims 7 and 14: Kaminski does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more communications includes one or more advertisements.
Miller teaches wherein the one or more communications includes one or more advertisements (offer for policy adjustment). (0029-0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kaminski, Bloebaum and Amberg combination to include these features as taught by Miller for the obvious reason of offering real time or near real time insurance rate adjustment based on driver’s driving score/behavior, thereby enhancing the flexibility of the system/process (Miller: 0029-0030).
Re claims 8, 15 and 21: Kaminski teaches wherein the filtering comprises discarding portions of the driving data that includes a set of sensor data occurring over a duration of time that the user was not operating a motor vehicle (0021-0022).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Please see updated rejection, supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peak et al. (USPAP 2011/0213628) is as cited in prior office action mailed 8/4/2023.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLABODE AKINTOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-3629. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30a-6:00p.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/OLABODE AKINTOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights