DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Upon an updated search and further consideration therefrom, the following rejections of claims 1-10 are outstanding.
A telephone call was made by the Examiner to James Gilles Attorney of Record of this Case on 2/23/2026.
Claim Interpretation
One or more driving behaviors associated with the fuel economy have been interpreted by paragraphs [0042] and [0089] of the specification.
[0042] The telematics information116 may include information regarding the vehicle ("diagnostic information") as well as the operation of the vehicle ("operation information").
start date and start time; trip end date and end time; miles traveled during a trip; use of electric or electronic accessories in the vehicle; tire pressure; and other types of diagnostic information suitable for assessing actions or conditions that could affect the fuel economy of the vehicle106. The operation information refers to information indicating the driving behaviors the driver exhibits during operation of the vehicle including behaviors related to speed, acceleration, braking, and turning. Examples of operation information that may be considered by the compensation system102 include: a count of "fast" acceleration events; a measure of the average rate of acceleration events per minute (events/min.); and other driving behaviors that could affect the fuel economy of the vehicle106.
[0089] In some example implementations, the compensation system may adjust the estimated fuel economy used to determine the compensation amount if the vehicle telematics information indicates a driver engaged in fuel-inefficient driving behaviors during the coverage period. Some examples of fuel-inefficient driving behaviors may include: use of electrical accessories such as the air conditioning unit, radio or other music players, navigation systems, and the like; failing to maintain appropriate tire pressure or wheel alignment; driving at speeds exceeding the optimal speed of the vehicle; frequent idling; frequent short trips; and failing to address maintenance issues. The vehicle telematics information may include telematics information that indicates such behaviors, which may be stored in a telematics data store of the compensation system as described above. Accordingly, the compensation system may adjust the estimated fuel efficiency where, for example, the vehicle telematics information indicates: use of electrical accessories for a predetermined percentage of time during trips taken in the vehicle (e.g., 50% of the time); the tire pressure is below the optimal tire pressure by a predetermined amount (e.g., 5 psi); exceeding the optimal speed of the vehicle by a predetermined amount for a predetermined percentage of time during trips taken in the vehicle (e.g., 5 miles per hour more than 50% of the time); idling for more than a predetermined amount of time (e.g., 7 minutes); a predetermined number of trips taken within a predetermined period of time that are each less than a predetermined distance (e.g., more than 5 trips less than one mile within a one hour time period); and recurrence of OBD codes indicating vehicle maintenance issues that need to be addressed.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gore 20120296727 in view of Phelan 20140087335
Gore teaches the following:
determining, by a compensation system, a baseline fuel price over a first time period (GORE nominated price);
determining, by the compensation system, a first fuel price based on the baseline fuel price; (GORE nominated price)
determining, by the compensation system, that a second fuel price (purchase price) for the second time period is higher than the first fuel price GORE [0004} comparing the purchase price with the nominated price; and if the purchase price is higher than the nominated price refunding the driver at least a portion of the difference between the purchase price and the nominated price for at least some of the quantity of fuel purchased.
during the future period or after the future period has passed, receiving purchase data including a quantity of fuel purchased by the driver during the period and a price paid for the purchased fuel; comparing the purchase price with the nominated price; and if the purchase price is higher than the nominated price refunding the driver at least a portion of the difference between the purchase price and the nominated price for at least some of the quantity of fuel purchased. Gore [0004] comparing the purchase price with the nominated price; and if the purchase price is higher than the nominated price refunding the driver at least a portion of the difference between the purchase price and the nominated price for at least some of the quantity of fuel purchased.
generating, by the compensation system, a driving score by analyzing the telematics information and the one or more driving behaviors associated with the fuel economy of the vehicle;
adjusting, by the compensation system, the driving score based on at least one driving behavior of the one or more driving behaviors that impacts the fuel economy of the vehicle; Gore [0037-0039]
determining, by the compensation system, a compensation amount based, at least in part, on a difference between the first fuel price and the second fuel price and the adjusted driving score; and
transmitting a notification of the compensation amount to a computing device associated with a driver of the vehicle. Gore [0009] the notification being the refund.
The reference fails to expressly teach but Phelan teaches of receiving, at the compensation system from a telematics device associated with a vehicle, telematics information collected by the telematics device during a second time period, the telematics information including vehicle operation data collected via at least one of a location sensor or an accelerometer, the vehicle operation data indicating one or more driving behaviors associated with a fuel economy of the vehicle;
Phelan FIG. 11 illustrates the detailed logic steps for determining a speed violation from each time marked data point of vehicle speed with the matrix of recorded information and the assessment of penalty points for the Driver Safety Rating. The logic program evaluates the uploaded data to determine whether the trip is finished 35-4. If not, the logic program obtains the next point having a valid GPS and engine data 35-9. (Reference is made to FIG. 9, items 35-4, 35-10, 35-11.) The logic program next queries whether the vehicle speed exceeds the posted limit 36-5. If the posted speed limit is not exceeded, there is no current violation 36-6. If the speed exceeds the posted limit 36-5, the logic program queries 36-8 whether the vehicle is operating at in concurrent violation, e.g., high-risk driving time violation, acceleration violation, etc. If the concurrent violation is of the same type 36-9 i.e., speed violation, the vehicle will be deemed to be operating in a continuing speed violation and DSR point deduction increased 36-10. If not of the same type 36-11, a separate DSR deduction will be calculated. The logic program then again queries whether the trip is finished 35-4. It will be appreciated that this logic sequence may be separate from a determination of whether a selected vehicle operating speed, e.g., 58 mph, is ever exceeded.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time to have combined the references as use the scoring system of Phelan as they are both directed to the common goal of incentivizing driving behavior.
Claim 2
(Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
initiating, by the compensation system, an electronic payment to a financial amount of individual associated with the vehicle, wherein the electronic payment is based on the compensation amount. Phelan teaches that the payment for the fuel via a credit card. Gore [0025] The credit or debit card will be used to purchase the fuel and in the process the quantities and price of purchased fuel will be captured. Alternatively or in addition the rewards card will be swiped (electronically read) at the point of purchase of fuel, and the quantities and price of purchased fuel will be captured in this manner. In any event, this information is transmitted to the receiving module 14 which stores this data in the database 16. It also teaches a refund process. Gore [0026] a refund for the driver is calculated being at least a part of the difference between the purchase price and the nominated price for the quantity of fuel purchased. As a refund is an art recognized equivalent to the claimed payment it would have been obvious to make a payment for the difference in fuel prices. If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." KSR lnt'I Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007).
Claim 3. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the telematics information comprises a total number of distance units traveled by the vehicle during the second time period, the method further comprising:
determining, by the compensation system, the compensation amount based on the difference between the first fuel price and the second fuel price and at least one of the total number of distance units. Gore [0026] a refund for the driver is calculated being at least a part of the difference between the purchase price and the nominated price for the quantity of fuel purchased. It would have been obvious for one to have combined the references as if a technique (scoring model) has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." KSR lnt'I Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007).
Claim 4. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 3, wherein the total number of distance units traveled by the vehicle during the second time period comprises an aggregate number of distance units traveled by the vehicle for a plurality of trips taken by the vehicle during the second time period. As the claims are directed to a method, and as this language further limits the non-limiting preamble of claim 3, claim 4 is also nonlimiting. Phelan [0062] FIG. 7 illustrates logic steps incorporated into one embodiment of the invention wherein uploaded recorded information may signal the end of one driving event and the start of a separate trip. It would have been obvious for one to have combined the references as if a technique (scoring model) has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." KSR lnt'I Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007). Thus it would have been obvious to combine the two references.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gore 20120296727 in view of McQuade US 20140195310 A1
5. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein determining the compensation amount further comprises:
determining, by the compensation system, the compensation amount based on an estimated fuel economy of the vehicle. MCQUADE teaches [0086] While the driver behavior monitoring application is running, driver behavior information is separated into reportable data and advisory data, based on predetermined parameters for a specific driving metric. The advisory data will be used to generate data to be displayed to the driver during vehicle operation, while the reportable data will be conveyed to the fleet owner via a data link. In an exemplary embodiment, the data metrics include one or more of excessive idle, excessive speed events, excessive hard braking events, excessive hard cornering events, lack of use of cruise control, inefficient shifting behavior, and over use of accessory equipment (which can reduce MPG). It would have been obvious for one to have combined the references as each is directed to a common goal of incentivizing driving behavior and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way. Using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." KSR lnt'I Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007). Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the two references.
6. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 5, wherein the estimated fuel economy is based on a vehicle type of the vehicle. MCQUADE teaches [0086] While the driver behavior monitoring application is running, driver behavior information is separated into reportable data and advisory data, based on predetermined parameters for a specific driving metric. The advisory data will be used to generate data to be displayed to the driver during vehicle operation, while the reportable data will be conveyed to the fleet owner via a data link. In an exemplary embodiment, the data metrics include one or more of excessive idle, excessive speed events, excessive hard braking events, excessive hard cornering events, lack of use of cruise control, inefficient shifting behavior, and over use of accessory equipment (which can reduce MPG). [0034] The term "vehicle telematics data," as used herein, may refer to multiple disparate parameters and information including, but not limited to, a vehicle identifier (e.g., VIN), driver identifier, vehicle make, vehicle model, vehicle year, fuel level, fuel type, oil level, oil type, vehicle error code, vehicle malfunction alert, historical data about traveled distances, historical data concerning travelled routes, mileage data, miles per gallon (MPG), or any combination thereof. It would have been obvious for one to have combined the references as each is directed to a common goal of incentivizing driving behavior and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way. Using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." KSR lnt'I Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007). Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the two references. While the references do not expressly teach of estimating based on the type of vehicle. MCQUADE teaches his approach for a fleet of vehicles and it would have been obvious to modify the telematic goals based on the type of vehicle. 20120296727
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gore in view of Gorpynich 20150134455
7. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 5, wherein the estimated fuel economy is determined based on one or more actual fuel economies received from one or more other vehicles having a same vehicle type as the vehicle. Gorpynich [0034] The term "vehicle telematics data," as used herein, may refer to multiple disparate parameters and information including, but not limited to, a vehicle identifier (e.g., VIN), driver identifier, vehicle make, vehicle model, vehicle year, fuel level, fuel type, oil level, oil type, vehicle error code, vehicle malfunction alert, historical data about traveled distances, historical data concerning travelled routes, mileage data, miles per gallon (MPG), or any combination thereof.
10. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the telematics information further comprises an actual fuel economy achieved by the vehicle during the second time period, wherein the compensation amount is further determined based on the actual fuel economy. Gorpynich [0034] The term "vehicle telematics data," as used herein, may refer to multiple disparate parameters and information including, but not limited to, a vehicle identifier (e.g., VIN), driver identifier, vehicle make, vehicle model, vehicle year, fuel level, fuel type, oil level, oil type, vehicle error code, vehicle malfunction alert, historical data about traveled distances, historical data concerning travelled routes, mileage data, miles per gallon (MPG), or any combination thereof.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gore 20120296727 in view of Racusin 20190210864
8. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein determining the baseline fuel price comprises determining an average fuel amount for the first time period within a geographic area associated with the vehicle. While the reference fails to teach determining the fuel price in this fashion, this method is an art recognized equivalent to the paid price Racusin [0059] Referring to FIG. 2, the remote central server 102 is configured to receive data from a plurality of retail fuel dispensers 50a, 50b . . . 50n, located, for example, in different geographical areas in which the local fees and local taxes as well as differences in wholesale unit gasoline prices may be different. The fuel dispensers 50a, 50b . . . 50n may be connected to the central server 102 by way of a plurality of conventional communication links 110, 112 and 114, respectively, which may be virtually any conventional wired or wireless communication link that enable bi-directional communication between the central server 102 and the fuel dispensers 50a, 50b . . . 50n.
9. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 8, wherein the geographic area associated with the vehicle comprises an area defined by a zip code in which the vehicle is registered. Racusin [0059] Referring to FIG. 2, the remote central server 102 is configured to receive data from a plurality of retail fuel dispensers 50a, 50b . . . 50n, located, for example, in different geographical areas in which the local fees and local taxes as well as differences in wholesale unit gasoline prices may be different. The fuel dispensers 50a, 50b . . . 50n may be connected to the central server 102 by way of a plurality of conventional communication links 110, 112 and 114, respectively, which may be virtually any conventional wired or wireless communication link that enable bi-directional communication between the central server 102 and the fuel dispensers 50a, 50b . . . 50n.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of compensating safe driving with a fuel refund . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons that follow:
Issue: Do the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Statutory Category is a method.
The representative claim directed to a Judicial Exception Recited is claim 1.
Claim 1 is the representative claim.
The steps comprise the following:
1. determining, by a compensation system, a baseline fuel price over a first time period;
2. Storing determining, by [[a]] the compensation system, a guaranteed first fuel price based on the baseline fuel price;
3. receiving, at the compensation system from a telematics device associated with a vehicle, telematics information collected by the telematics device during a predetermined second time period wherein the telematics information comprises a total number of distance units traveled by a vehicle during the predetermined time period;
4. determining, by the compensation system, that a comparison second fuel price for the predetermined second time period is higher than the guaranteed first fuel price; determining, by the compensation system, an estimated fuel economy based on a vehicle type of the vehicle; and
5. determining, by the compensation system, a compensation amount based, at least in part, a difference between the guaranteed first fuel price and the comparison second fuel price[[,]] and the vehicle telematics information;
6. causing a computing device associated with a driver of the vehicle to display a notification of the compensation amount.
Step 2A-Prong 1
Limitations 1-6, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation
as certain methods of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include compensation system and the telematics device. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2
The issue is do the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements are the compensation system and the telematics device. If, inter alia, the claimed additional element reflects an improvement in their functioning or are an improvement to a technical field the claims are eligible under this section. On the other hand, merely using a these components as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment are support for ineligibility.
Here, the compensation system and the telematic are claimed are recited at a high-level (perhaps the highest level) of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 2B
The issue is whether these same additional elements alone or as a combination of element
provides an "inventive concept," i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds
specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that simply appends the abstract idea or and/or are "well-understood, routine, conventional activity" in the field which is indicative that an inventive concept is not present or simply appends well understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception.
Here, the additional elements are used as tools to implement the abstract idea without improving the elements, the additional elements process information but do so without an inventive concept. As an ordered combination, these elements recite no more than when they are considered individually. Mere instructions to an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The specification describe only generic functions, see paragraphs [074] [084] [086]. Moreover, as set forth in the Gore and the Phelan references in the 103 above, the steps performed in by the telematics and the compensation system are routine and conventional.
Dependent claim 2-10 are further embodiments of the abstract idea using the same additional components as the representative claim and are rejected using the same rational as above.
Response to Arguments
Under 2A, the applicant argued that as the claims further recite determining, by the compensation system, a compensation amount based, at least in part, on a difference between the first fuel price and the second fuel price and the vehicle telematics information, and causing a computing device associated with a driver of the vehicle to display a notification of the compensation amount, the claims go beyond merely using a computer as a tool to carry out an abstract idea and are a practical application of the abstract idea. Under 2B, the Applicant submits that, claim 1 contains elements that, when considered in combination, amount to “significantly more” than the alleged judicial exception. The arguments are not directed to the an element providing significantly more but rather to the abstract idea.
For the reasons set forth above as well as having established that the operations of the telematics device and the compensation system are routine and conventional, the arguments are not persuasive.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C WEISBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10AM-8PM PCT.
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 on 571-270-0580. 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.
/RICHARD C WEISBERGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693