DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's reply filed 9/1/2026.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner wants to define the hardware recited in these claims.
An “automobile, including: a plurality of telematic sensors including an accelerometer, speed, temperature, mileage, oil level, oil pressure, run-time, and location sensors”, which is very generic and included on most automobiles produced and driven in the United States. The Examiner notes that the sensors perform in the generic manner of collecting data.
A “risk relationship data store”, which is a generic storage.
A “claims engine”, which is a generic computer component, most likely software, but not recited as being part of the other hardware.
A “device located proximate to the automobile including: an interface for a passenger associated with the automobile, wherein the passenger comprises a party, a transmitter, via a distributed communication network”, which is a generic cell phone that a human user uses.
A “transceiver, remote from the automobile, stores the signal in a memory unit, the transceiver including a back-end application computer server comprising: a computer processor, and a computer memory coupled to the computer processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the back-end application computer server to: from the telematic sensors, to a remote risk relationship platform; from the remote risk relationship platform, to the device located proximate to the automobile via a security feature component and a distributed communication network, automatically established by a machine learning engine based on information in a machine learning database”, which is a general purpose computer that runs the abstract idea based on data collected from the automobile and device located proximate to the automobile (e.g. the user device).
With regard to the limitations of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 being rejected under 35 USC 101, the Examiner asserts that the claimed hardware appears to be 3 general purpose computers. The first computer is on the automobile and merely transmits data to the “transceiver”. The second computer is the “device located proximate to the automobile”, which is a generic computer (e.g. cell phone) that is merely transmitting data to the “transceiver”. The third computer is the “transceiver”, which also is a general purpose computer that runs the calculations (e.g. the abstract idea). The computers are merely collecting and transmitting human input data to the transceiver so the transceiver can run the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 in light of the August 2025 memorandum. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has already set forth a prima facie case under 35 USC 101. The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner asserts the use of general purpose computer components (described above) for implementing the abstract idea does not make the claims eligible (See MPEP 2106.05). Applicant does not disclose what the specific combination of elements is that improves the technology or how the technology is improved. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the ordered combination makes the claims eligible. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described above the hardware is all general purpose computer components interacting with one another for implementing the abstract idea (as shown). The hardware is recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 are directed toward a system; which are statutory categories of invention.
Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a system comprising: an automobile, including: a plurality of telematic sensors including an accelerometer, speed, temperature, mileage, oil level, oil pressure, run-time, and location sensors; a risk relationship data store containing encrypted electronic records that represent, for each of a plurality of risk relationships with an enterprise: a risk relationship identifier, an automobile identifier, at least one attribute value, and a resource amount automatically calculated by a trained predictive model; a claims engine; a device located proximate to the automobile, including: an interface for a passenger associated with the automobile, wherein the passenger comprises a party interested in a potential risk relationship in connection with the automobile, and a transmitter to transmit a request signal, generated via the interface, via a distributed communication network; and a transceiver, remote from the automobile, that receives the transmitted request signal and stores the signal in a memory unit, the transceiver including a back-end application computer server comprising: a computer processor, and a computer memory coupled to the computer processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the back-end application computer server to: (i) associate the request signal with a specific future trip of the automobile,(ii) forward information about the specific future trip of the automobile, including origin and destination locations along with information from the telematic sensors, to a remote risk relationship platform with the trained predictive model, the trained predictive model being trained based on telematics data from other automobiles,(iii) receive, from the remote risk relationship platform, information about a potential risk relationship with another enterprise selected in accordance with the trained predictive model, (iv) transmit at least one risk relationship offer, including information about the potential risk relationship with the other enterprise, to the device located proximate to the automobile via a security feature component and a distributed communication network, (v) receive, from the automobile, an agreement signal for a risk relationship product, the agreement signal automatically generated responsive to the automobile's automatic selection of the risk relationship product included in at least one risk relationship offer, update the risk relationship data store, wherein the agreement signal is automatically generated based on passenger preferences including an insurance premium automatically established by a machine learning engine based on information in a machine learning database, a preferred insurer, an amount of coverage, and a loyalty program, (vi) register, via an Application Programming Interface (API), the selected risk relationship product as active, (vii) transmit, via the API, a digital proof of risk relationship for the active risk relationship product to a law enforcement database, and (viii) create and transmit a two-dimensional matrix barcode, representing a digital proof of risk relationship, to the device located proximate to the automobile, wherein the predictive model automatically adapts to changing event impacts responsive to trip information and claim transaction results reported by the claims engine (Organizing Human Activity), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing risk relationships with automobiles and enterprises and determining risk relationship offers to offer human users, for facilitating contracts between users and the automobile that when accepted will update the risk relationship values for providing insurance at a cost, which is managing how humans interact (with automobiles) for commercial purposes.
Dependent claims 3-5 and 7-10 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the independent claims additionally recite “a system comprising: an automobile, including: a plurality of telematic sensors including an accelerometer, speed, temperature, mileage, oil level, oil pressure, run-time, and location sensors; a risk relationship data store; a trained predictive model; a claims engine; a device located proximate to the automobile, including: an interface for a passenger associated with the automobile, wherein the passenger comprises a party, a transmitter, via a distributed communication network; and a transceiver, remote from the automobile, stores the signal in a memory unit, the transceiver including a back-end application computer server comprising: a computer processor, and a computer memory coupled to the computer processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the back-end application computer server to: from the telematic sensors, to a remote risk relationship platform; from the remote risk relationship platform, to the device located proximate to the automobile via a security feature component and a distributed communication network, automatically established by a machine learning engine based on information in a machine learning database; via an Application Programming Interface (API); to a law enforcement database (claim 1)” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106) and are recited at such a high level of generality. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
In addition, dependent claims 3-5 and 7-10 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 7-8 additionally recite “(i) a smartphone, (ii) a tablet computer, (iii) a smartwatch, and (iv) a device installed in the automobile (claim 7)”; “(i) a reporting engine, (ii) a rating engine, and (iii) a digital negotiation engine (claim 8)” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106). Further, System Independent claim 1 recites “a system comprising: an automobile, including: a plurality of telematic sensors including an accelerometer, speed, temperature, mileage, oil level, oil pressure, run-time, and location sensors; a risk relationship data store; a trained predictive model; a claims engine; a device located proximate to the automobile, including: an interface for a passenger associated with the automobile, wherein the passenger comprises a party, a transmitter, via a distributed communication network; and a transceiver, remote from the automobile, stores the signal in a memory unit, the transceiver including a back-end application computer server comprising: a computer processor, and a computer memory coupled to the computer processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the back-end application computer server to: from the telematic sensors, to a remote risk relationship platform; from the remote risk relationship platform, to the device located proximate to the automobile via a security feature component and a distributed communication network, automatically established by a machine learning engine based on information in a machine learning database; via an Application Programming Interface (API); to a law enforcement database (claim 1)”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0021-0022 and Figures 1-2. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 3-5 and 7-10 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 7-8 additionally recite “(i) a smartphone, (ii) a tablet computer, (iii) a smartwatch, and (iv) a device installed in the automobile (claim 7)”; “(i) a reporting engine, (ii) a rating engine, and (iii) a digital negotiation engine (claim 8)” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable over 35 USC 103
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 are allowable over the prior art, but remain rejected under §101 for the reasons set forth above. Independent claims 1 disclose a system for analyzing risk relationships with automobiles and enterprises and human users and determining risk relationship offers to offer the human users, for facilitating contracts between users and the automobile that when accepted will update the risk relationship values for providing insurance at a cost so the human can use the vehicle, wherein the vehicle has telematic sensors that collect data from the vehicle and using a trained predictive model.
Regarding a possible 103 rejection: The closest prior art of record is:
Kowal et al. (US 2020/0062274 A1) – which discloses remotely monitoring and controlling vehicles (See previous OA citations).
Roll et al. (US 2022/0245727 A1) – which discloses methods for reinsuring human customers for automobiles (See previous OA citations).
Lehman et al. (US 11,030,702 B1) – which discloses a mobile insurance platform (See previous OA citations).
The prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all particulars of the limitations as recited in claims 1, such as analyzing risk relationships with automobiles and enterprises and human users and determining risk relationship offers to offer the human users, for facilitating contracts between users and the automobile that when accepted will update the risk relationship values for providing insurance at a cost so the human can use the vehicle, wherein the vehicle has telematic sensors that collect data from the vehicle and using a trained predictive model. While individual features may be known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine these features other than with impermissible hindsight and the combination/arrangement of features are not found in analogous art. Specifically the claimed “a system comprising: an automobile, including: a plurality of telematic sensors including an accelerometer, speed, temperature, mileage, oil level, oil pressure, run-time, and location sensors; a risk relationship data store containing encrypted electronic records that represent, for each of a plurality of risk relationships with an enterprise: a risk relationship identifier, an automobile identifier, at least one attribute value, and a resource amount automatically calculated by a trained predictive model; a claims engine; a device located proximate to the automobile, including: an interface for a passenger associated with the automobile, wherein the passenger comprises a party interested in a potential risk relationship in connection with the automobile, and a transmitter to transmit a request signal, generated via the interface, via a distributed communication network; and a transceiver, remote from the automobile, that receives the transmitted request signal and stores the signal in a memory unit, the transceiver including a back-end application computer server comprising: a computer processor, and a computer memory coupled to the computer processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the back-end application computer server to: (i) associate the request signal with a specific future trip of the automobile,(ii) forward information about the specific future trip of the automobile, including origin and destination locations along with information from the telematic sensors, to a remote risk relationship platform with the trained predictive model, the trained predictive model being trained based on telematics data from other automobiles,(iii) receive, from the remote risk relationship platform, information about a potential risk relationship with another enterprise selected in accordance with the trained predictive model, (iv) transmit at least one risk relationship offer, including information about the potential risk relationship with the other enterprise, to the device located proximate to the automobile via a security feature component and a distributed communication network, (v) receive, from the automobile, an agreement signal for a risk relationship product, the agreement signal automatically generated responsive to the automobile's automatic selection of the risk relationship product included in at least one risk relationship offer, update the risk relationship data store, wherein the agreement signal is automatically generated based on passenger preferences including an insurance premium automatically established by a machine learning engine based on information in a machine learning database, a preferred insurer, an amount of coverage, and a loyalty program, (vi) register, via an Application Programming Interface (API), the selected risk relationship product as active, (vii) transmit, via the API, a digital proof of risk relationship for the active risk relationship product to a law enforcement database, and (viii) create and transmit a two-dimensional matrix barcode, representing a digital proof of risk relationship, to the device located proximate to the automobile, wherein the predictive model automatically adapts to changing event impacts responsive to trip information and claim transaction results reported by the claims engine (as required by independent claims 1)”, thus rendering claims 1 and their dependent claims as allowable over the prior art.
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.
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights