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 the Claims
This office action is being examined in response to the amendments submitted by the applicant on June 1, 2026.
Claims 1–20 have been cancelled.
Claims 21–22, 24–30, and 32–40 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 23 and 31 are previously presented.
Claims 21–40 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Mike Anderson.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the § 112(a) Rejection:
Applicant has amended independent Claims 21, 29, and 37 to remove the unsupported language regarding an operational mode “contribut[ing] to” the occurrence of a collision. The amended claims now recite “establishing… based upon the operational mode and whether one or more control decisions of the one or more autonomous operation features preceded the collision, whether the vehicle or a driver of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle at the time of the collision,” which finds adequate written description support in the specification at ¶¶ [0180], [0183], and [0214]. The § 112(a) rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the § 101 Rejection:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 21–40 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been carefully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
A. The Claims Do Recite an Abstract Idea Under Step 2A, Prong 1
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite any of the enumerated sub-groupings of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” specifically asserting the claims do not recite (i) fundamental economic practices, (ii) commercial or legal interactions, or (iii) managing personal behavior or relationships.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do fall squarely within “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)” and “commercial or legal interactions.” Specifically:
The concept of determining fault following a vehicle collision is a fundamental legal/commercial interaction that has been performed by insurance adjusters, claims handlers, and legal professionals long before the advent of computers. Determining who was “in control” of a vehicle at the time of an accident, allocating responsibility between a driver and vehicle technology, and adjusting risk evaluations based on that determination are activities central to the insurance and legal industries.
The dependent claims make this abundantly clear: Claim 22 recites “assigning… an allocation of fault for the collision to the driver”; Claim 23 recites “adjusting… a risk profile associated with the driver”; Claims 24–27 recite various fault allocations and risk profile adjustments between the driver and the autonomous features. These are classic insurance underwriting and claims adjustment activities — i.e., “mitigating risk” and “business relations” — that fall within the enumerated sub-groupings.
The 2019 PEG and MPEP explicitly identifies “insurance” and “mitigating risk” as examples of fundamental economic practices. The core concept of the claims — evaluating a collision event, determining fault based on who was in control, and adjusting evaluations/risk profiles — is precisely the type of insurance risk assessment activity contemplated by the grouping.
Applicant’s assertion that “the Office has not provided any assertion that the claims recite any of these activities” is incorrect. The prior Office Action explicitly stated: “The limitations of receiving data, including information, detecting, identifying, determining and assigning an allocation are directed to concepts of organizing human activity via the use of generic computer components.” The current rejection further clarifies that these activities constitute fundamental economic practices (insurance fault determination and risk assessment) and commercial/legal interactions (fault allocation between parties following a collision), both of which are expressly enumerated sub-groupings.
B. The Claims Do Not Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application Under Step 2A, Prong 2
Applicant argues that the claims recite “a specific improvement to the technical field of automotive collision identification and review” and represent “a technical improvement over manual and subjective analyses of automotive collisions.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
1. The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology.
To demonstrate an improvement to technology under MPEP 2106.05(a), the claim must be directed to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to another technology or technical field. The relevant inquiry is whether the claim focuses on a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or instead merely invokes computers as a tool to perform an existing process. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016); MPEP 2106.05(a).
Here, the claims do not improve the functioning of any computer. The processors perform standard computing operations: receiving data, detecting patterns within data, identifying/classifying a mode, establishing a determination based on data analysis, and adjusting a stored value. None of these operations represent an improvement to how a computer functions. The computer operates in the same generic manner before and after implementation of the claimed method.
Furthermore, the claims do not improve autonomous vehicle technology. The autonomous operation features are not modified, retrained, updated in their software logic, or structurally altered by the claimed steps. The claims merely evaluate autonomous features after the fact — they do not improve how those features control a vehicle, detect obstacles, process sensor inputs, or make real-time control decisions. Adjusting an “evaluation” of a feature is not the same as improving the feature’s technical performance.
2. The alleged “improvement” is an improvement to the business process, not to technology.
Applicant characterizes the improvement as being over “manual and subjective analyses of automotive collisions.” The Examiner notes that automating a manual or subjective business process by implementing it on a computer does not constitute a technical improvement for purposes of § 101. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2014) (“[M]erely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform [an] abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”); see also Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding that “using a computer to more efficiently practice the abstract idea of processing applications for financing” did not render claims patent-eligible).
The improvement alleged by Applicant — that the claims integrate “time-stamped sensor data into the detection of the collision and the relationship between an operational mode and or control instructions of autonomous features to an establishment of a controlling entity and an adjustment of a feature evaluation” — describes the automation of a fault determination process, not an improvement to computer technology or sensor technology. Insurance adjusters have historically reviewed accident reports (including vehicle recorder data, witness statements, and expert analyses) to determine who was in control of a vehicle and whether automated systems functioned properly. The claims automate this judgment using generic computing components, but do not claim a specific technical mechanism by which detection, identification, or evaluation is performed in a non-conventional manner.
3. The claims lack the specificity required to demonstrate a technological improvement.
The specification does not identify any specific technical problem being solved in the functioning of computers, sensors, or autonomous systems. There are no performance metrics (e.g., reduced processing time, reduced memory usage, improved detection accuracy, reduced false positives) attributed to the claimed method. The specification does not compare the claimed approach against prior technical approaches and demonstrate a measurable improvement. Rather, the specification frames the problem and solution in terms of insurance risk assessment — i.e., “premiums may be typically determined based upon a selected level of insurance coverage… [p]ast and current premium determination methods do not, however, account for use of autonomous vehicle operating features” (Spec. ¶ [0005]).
4. General linking to a technological environment does not establish integration.
Applicant’s argument that the claims are “specific to the goal of improving vehicle safety” conflates a field of use limitation with a practical application. Limiting an abstract fault-determination process to the field of autonomous vehicles does not demonstrate integration into a practical application. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“limiting the abstract concept to a particular technological environment… does not make it any less abstract”); see also MPEP 2106.05(h).
The sensors recited in the claims merely provide data inputs — they do not interact with the claimed method in any technologically meaningful way beyond supplying data. The operational mode identification is a classification/categorization step. The “establishing” step is a logical determination. The “adjusting” step modifies a stored value. None of these steps, individually or in combination, demonstrate a technical improvement.
5. The claimed steps are results-oriented, not technically specific.
The claims recite what is accomplished (detecting a collision, identifying a mode, establishing control, adjusting an evaluation) but not how it is accomplished in a technically specific or non-conventional manner. There is no claimed algorithm, data structure, sensor fusion technique, or processing architecture that would transform these results-oriented steps into a technological improvement. The breadth of the claims — which encompass any means of detecting a collision from operating data, any means of identifying a mode, any means of establishing control, and any means of adjusting an evaluation — confirms that the claims are directed to the abstract goal rather than a specific technical implementation.
C. Summary of Step 2A Analysis
The claims recite the abstract idea of post-collision fault determination and risk evaluation adjustment in the context of autonomous vehicle operation (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity — fundamental economic practices/insurance/mitigating risk and commercial/legal interactions). The additional elements (generic processors, sensors disposed within a vehicle) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to: (a) mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)); and © generally linking the abstract idea to the technological field of autonomous vehicles (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claims remain directed to an abstract idea.
D. Step 2B — The Claims Do Not Provide Significantly More
Even assuming arguendo that the claims are not integrated into a practical application at Step 2A, the additional elements do not provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea. The use of generic processors to perform the recited steps amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. The receipt of sensor data from vehicle-mounted sensors is well-understood, routine, and conventional (see Applicant’s own specification at ¶¶ [0062]–[0065] describing generic sensors and computing hardware without any indication of non-conventionality; see also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) — receiving or transmitting data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory). The claims do not amount to significantly more.
E. Applicant’s Amended Claims Do Not Overcome the Rejection
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments, which now recite: (1) detecting a collision from within operating data; (2) in response to detecting, identifying an operational mode; (3) establishing, based upon the operational mode and whether control decisions preceded the collision, whether the vehicle or driver was in control; and (4) when the vehicle was in control, adjusting an evaluation of the autonomous features.
These amendments refine the fault-determination process but do not add a technological improvement or a practical application. The conditional limitation (“when the vehicle was in control”) is merely a logical branch in the business process. The “establishing” limitation, while more specific than the previous “determining how the mode contributed to,” remains a judgment/evaluation that falls within the abstract idea. The specific framing — looking at the operational mode and whether control decisions preceded the collision — describes a more detailed version of the same fault-allocation inquiry without adding a technical mechanism or improvement to computer functionality.
Conclusion: The § 101 rejection of Claims 21–40 is maintained. The claims remain directed to an abstract idea (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity) without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Claim Rejections — Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321© or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Claims 21–40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,599,155 (Konrardy et al.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Both the instant application and U.S. Patent No. 10,599,155 are directed to computer-implemented systems and methods for monitoring autonomous vehicle operations, detecting collisions, analyzing autonomous system control decisions surrounding a collision event, and assigning fault or adjusting evaluations related to the autonomous operation features following the collision. The claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,599,155 render the instant claims obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that identifying the operational mode of a vehicle and establishing who was in control (instant claims) is an obvious variant of comparing preferred versus actual control decisions to assign a percentage of fault (reference patent), as both approaches seek to determine responsibility between the driver and the autonomous system following a collision and to adjust risk/evaluation profiles accordingly.
Comparison Table: Instant Claim 21 vs. Reference Patent Claim 1 (US 10,599,155)
Limitation
Instant Claim 21
US 10,599,155, Claim 1
Analysis
Preamble / System Context
“A computer-implemented method for evaluating vehicle operations” performed by one or more processors
“A computer system for monitoring an autonomous vehicle having an autonomous system” comprising one or more processors and non-transitory program memory
Both recite computer-implemented systems/methods for evaluating/monitoring autonomous vehicle operations. The difference in claim category (method vs. system) is an obvious variation.
Receiving operating/sensor data
“receiving… operating data of a vehicle during a vehicle trip, the operating data including information regarding use of one or more autonomous operation features… wherein the operating data are received from one or more sensors disposed within the vehicle”
“receive, via wireless communication or data transmission over one or more radio links, initial sensor data indicating the occurrence of a vehicle collision… receive… additional sensor data from at least one vehicle-mounted sensor, autonomous system sensor, or mobile device sensor”
Both receive sensor/operating data from vehicle-mounted sensors. The reference patent specifies wireless radio links; the instant claims specify sensors disposed within the vehicle. These are obvious variants of receiving vehicle sensor data.
Detecting/identifying collision
“detecting… from within the operating data, a collision has occurred during the vehicle trip”
“receive… initial sensor data indicating the occurrence of a vehicle collision involving the autonomous vehicle”
Both detect/recognize that a collision has occurred based on sensor data. The instant claims detect from within operating data; the reference receives an indication. Functionally equivalent — obvious variant.
Identifying operational mode / Analyzing control decisions
“in response to said detecting the collision, identifying… an operational mode of the vehicle during the vehicle trip at the time of the collision, wherein the operational mode of the vehicle includes one of a manual driving mode, a fully autonomous driving mode, or a semi-autonomous driving mode”
“process the additional sensor data using a trained machine learning program to determine one or more preferred control decisions the autonomous system should have made to control the autonomous vehicle immediately before or during the vehicle collision”
The instant claims categorize the operational mode (manual/auto/semi-auto); the reference determines what the autonomous system should have done via ML. Both analyze the autonomous system’s involvement at the time of collision. The reference’s ML-based preferred decision analysis implicitly accounts for the operational mode — if the system was not engaged, no preferred control decision would exist. These are complementary analytical approaches to the same problem and obvious in view of one another.
Establishing who was in control / Comparing decisions
“establishing… based upon the operational mode and whether one or more control decisions of the one or more autonomous operation features preceded the collision, whether the vehicle or a driver of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle at the time of the collision”
“receive control decision data indicating one or more actual control decisions the autonomous system made to control the autonomous vehicle immediately before or during the vehicle collision; determine a degree of similarity between the one or more preferred control decisions… and the one or more actual control decisions”
Both analyze control decisions of the autonomous system preceding/during the collision. The instant claim uses control decisions to determine who was in control; the reference uses control decisions to determine how well the system performed relative to preferred decisions. Both are directed to the same underlying inquiry: was the autonomous system’s behavior appropriate at the time of collision? One of ordinary skill would find it obvious to frame this analysis either as a mode/control determination or as a preferred-vs-actual decision comparison.
Adjusting evaluation / Assigning fault
“when the vehicle was in control at the time of the collision, adjusting… an evaluation of at least one of the one or more autonomous operation features”
“assign a percentage of fault for the vehicle collision to the autonomous system based upon the determined degree of similarity between the one or more preferred control decisions and the one or more actual control decisions”
Both ultimately assign responsibility to the autonomous system and adjust its evaluation/rating. The instant claims “adjust an evaluation” of the features; the reference “assigns a percentage of fault.” These are two sides of the same coin — assigning fault to an autonomous system logically results in adjusting its risk evaluation, and vice versa. See also Reference Claim 10 (adjusting a risk level or model parameter). Obvious variant.
Additional Dependent Claim Correspondences:
Instant Claim
US 10,599,155 Claim
Correspondence
22 (assign fault to driver in manual mode)
1 (assign fault based on degree of similarity — if actual decisions were not made by the system, 0% fault to system = 100% fault to driver)
Obvious variant — absence of autonomous control decisions = driver fault
23 (adjust risk profile of driver)
10 (adjust risk level or model parameter based on actual control decisions)
Both adjust risk profiles/parameters post-collision
24 (assign fault to autonomous features in fully autonomous mode)
1 (assign percentage of fault to autonomous system)
Directly corresponds
25 (adjust risk profiles of autonomous features)
10 (adjust risk level or model parameter associated with autonomous vehicle/system)
Directly corresponds
26 (allocate fault between driver and features in semi-auto mode)
1 (assign percentage of fault — partial allocation implicit when degree of similarity is intermediate)
Obvious variant
27 (adjust risk profiles of both driver and features)
10 (adjust risk level or model parameter)
Obvious variant — extending to both parties
28 (determining which features were in use and whether driver overrode)
1 (receive control decision data indicating actual control decisions made); see also spec discussion of overrides
Both analyze which control decisions were actually implemented; the override determination is an obvious extension
29 (system claim — parallel to 21)
1 (system claim)
Same analysis as Claim 21 above
37 (CRM claim — adds “determine whether behavior of the driver… could have avoided or mitigated an effect of the collision”)
1 + spec (determining preferred control decisions that should have been made implicitly evaluates whether alternative behavior could have mitigated the collision)
Obvious variant — the ML-determined “preferred” decisions represent what should have been done to avoid/mitigate the collision
Rationale for Obviousness:
The claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,599,155 and the instant application are directed to the same core inventive concept: monitoring an autonomous vehicle, detecting a collision, analyzing the autonomous system’s control decisions at the time of the collision, and determining fault/adjusting evaluations of the autonomous system. The differences are in the analytical framing:
Instant claims: Use operational mode classification (manual/auto/semi-auto) as the primary analytical lens for determining who was in control, then adjust autonomous feature evaluations accordingly.
Reference patent: Use ML-based comparison of preferred vs. actual control decisions as the primary analytical lens, then assign a fault percentage and adjust risk levels.
A person of ordinary skill in the art of autonomous vehicle insurance systems, given the teachings of either claim set and the shared specification disclosure, would have found it obvious to:
Categorize the vehicle’s operational mode as a preliminary step before analyzing control decisions (as mode determines which features were engaged and therefore which decisions are relevant); and
Translate a fault percentage assignment into an adjustment of feature evaluations, and vice versa, as these are functionally equivalent outcomes of the same fault determination process.
The shared specification (which discloses both approaches — see ¶¶ [0179]–[0225] of the instant application and corresponding paragraphs in the reference patent’s parent specification) confirms that these are merely different embodiments of the same inventive concept.
Conclusion:
Claims 21–40 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from Claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,599,155 and are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
This rejection may be overcome by filing a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321© or (d).
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 21–40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 21:
Step 1 – Statutory Category: Claim 21 recites a computer-implemented method and therefore falls within the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Abstract Idea: Claim 21 recites, in part:
detecting… a collision has occurred during the vehicle trip;
in response to said detecting the collision, identifying… an operational mode of the vehicle during the vehicle trip at the time of the collision, wherein the operational mode of the vehicle includes one of a manual driving mode, a fully autonomous driving mode, or a semi-autonomous driving mode;
establishing… based upon the operational mode and whether one or more control decisions of the one or more autonomous operation features preceded the collision, whether the vehicle or a driver of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle at the time of the collision; and
when the vehicle was in control at the time of the collision, adjusting… an evaluation of at least one of the one or more autonomous operation features.
These limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are directed to the concept of determining fault and adjusting a risk or performance evaluation following a vehicle collision based upon who or what was in control of the vehicle. This is a fundamental economic practice and commercial/legal interaction — specifically, fault determination and risk assessment in the context of vehicle insurance. The allocation of fault between a driver and vehicle technology, and the subsequent adjustment of evaluations (i.e., risk profiles), is an activity long performed by insurance adjusters, claims handlers, and underwriters as part of ordinary business operations in the insurance industry. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52 (Jan. 7, 2019) and MPEP (identifying “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)” and “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” as abstract ideas under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements:
“one or more processors” performing the recited steps;
“receiving… operating data of a vehicle during a vehicle trip, the operating data including information regarding use of one or more autonomous operation features to control the vehicle during the vehicle trip, wherein the operating data are received from one or more sensors disposed within the vehicle.”
The recitation of “one or more processors” amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The receiving of operating data from sensors disposed within the vehicle constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity, namely mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The sensors are recited at a high level of generality without any specificity as to their type, configuration, or interaction with the claimed method beyond providing data inputs. The claim does not recite any improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology; does not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (beyond a generic processor); does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e., autonomous vehicles). See MPEP 2106.05(a)–©, (e)–(h).
Furthermore, while the claims reference autonomous vehicle technology as the environment in which the method operates, the claims do not improve autonomous vehicle technology itself. The autonomous operation features are not modified, retrained, updated in their software logic, or structurally altered by the claimed steps. Rather, the claims evaluate and assign responsibility after the fact — a fundamentally business/legal judgment. Linking an abstract idea to the technological field of autonomous vehicles does not demonstrate patent eligibility. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The use of generic processors to perform the recited operations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The collection of vehicle operating data from on-board sensors is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See the Applicant’s own specification at ¶¶ [0062]–[0065] (describing generic sensors, on-board computers, and processors used in the system without any indication that these are non-conventional); see also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (receiving or transmitting data over a network; electronic recordkeeping; storing and retrieving information in memory). The combination of these generic elements does not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 22–28:
Claims 22–28 depend from Claim 21 and recite further limitations directed to the abstract idea itself without adding elements sufficient to amount to significantly more:
Claim 22 recites assigning an allocation of fault to the driver when the mode is manual — this is a further specification of the fault allocation business process.
Claim 23 recites adjusting a risk profile associated with the driver — this is a further insurance/risk assessment business operation.
Claim 24 recites assigning fault to autonomous operation features when the mode is fully autonomous — this further specifies the fault allocation.
Claim 25 recites adjusting risk profiles associated with autonomous operation features — this is further risk assessment.
Claim 26 recites assigning fault between the driver and autonomous features in semi-autonomous mode — this further specifies the allocation of fault.
Claim 27 recites adjusting risk profiles for both the driver and the autonomous features — further risk assessment operations.
Claim 28 recites determining which autonomous features were in use and whether the driver overrode control decisions — this further refines the fault/control determination, which remains part of the organizing human activity abstraction.
None of Claims 22–28 recite additional elements beyond those addressed in Claim 21 that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claims do not identify an improvement to computer technology or computer functionality (MPEP 2106.05(a)), a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), or a particular transformation (MPEP 2106.05©). Claims 22–28 are not patent eligible.
Claim 29:
Step 1 – Statutory Category: Claim 29 recites a system comprising one or more processors and a memory storing instructions, and therefore falls within the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Abstract Idea: Claim 29 is substantially similar to Claim 21 and recites the same abstract idea of determining fault and adjusting evaluations following a vehicle collision based upon who or what was in control of the vehicle. This remains directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity — specifically, fundamental economic practices and commercial/legal interactions relating to insurance fault determination and risk assessment.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Practical Application: The additional elements of “one or more processors” and “a memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions” are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality. The receipt of operating data from sensors disposed within the vehicle constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. For the same reasons articulated with respect to Claim 21, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B – Significantly More: For the same reasons as stated with respect to Claim 21, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The generic system architecture (processors and memory) is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Applicant’s specification at ¶¶ [0062]–[0070]. Claim 29 is not patent eligible.
Claims 30–36:
Claims 30–36 depend from Claim 29 and are parallel to dependent Claims 22–28. For the same reasons discussed with respect to Claims 22–28, Claims 30–36 do not include additional elements sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 30–36 are not patent eligible.
Claim 37:
Step 1 – Statutory Category: Claim 37 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, and therefore falls within the statutory category of a manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Abstract Idea: Claim 37 is substantially similar to Claims 21 and 29, with the additional limitation of “second determine whether behavior of the driver of the vehicle preceding the collision could have avoided or mitigated an effect of the collision.” This additional limitation further specifies the abstract fault determination process — i.e., evaluating whether a driver could have acted differently to avoid or mitigate the collision — which is squarely within the domain of insurance claims adjusting, legal liability analysis, and commercial interactions. Claim 37 recites the same abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Practical Application: The additional elements — a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a computing device, and at least one processor — are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality. The receipt of operating data from sensors constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional determination of whether driver behavior could have avoided or mitigated the collision does not add a technological improvement but rather further elaborates the business/legal analysis. For the same reasons discussed with respect to Claim 21, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B – Significantly More: For the same reasons as stated above, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more. Claim 37 is not patent eligible.
Claims 38–40:
Claims 38–40 depend from Claim 37 and recite further fault allocation between the driver and the autonomous features under various operational modes. For the same reasons discussed with respect to Claims 22–28, these limitations further define the abstract business process without adding elements sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 38–40 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion: Claims 21–40 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea — Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic practices, commercial/legal interactions involving insurance fault determination and risk assessment) — without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Biemer, U.S. 9,940,676, generally identifies insurance analysis of autonomous driving, vehicles engaged in autonomous driving, vehicle driving data, operational data, and external driving factors and conditions; Hanson, U.S. 9,773,281 generally identifies accident detection, accident analysis and characteristics, and damages resulting from an accident; Plante, U.S. 9,633,318 generally identifies vehicle event recording, vehicle accidents, and identification of causes and the nature of vehicle events; and Brandmaier et al., U.S. 9,019,092 generally identifies.
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 MICHAEL W ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-4pm.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
Mike Anderson
Supervisor Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3693
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights