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 .
Applicant filed a response dated January 16, 2026 in which claims 21-23, 25, 27, 31-32, 34-35, 39, and 46-49 have been amended; claims 1-20, 24, 26, 28-30, 33, and 40-45 have been canceled; and claims 50-51 have been added. Therefore, claims 21-23, 25, 27, 31-32, 34-39, and 46-51 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Application 17/975,925 was filed on 10/28/2022 and is a CON of 16/828,249 03/24/2020, which is a CON of 16/407,236 05/09/2019, which is a CON of 14/990,073 01/07/2016 PAT 10,354,333, which claims benefit of 62/250,286 11/03/2015, and claims benefit of 62/247 ,334 10/28/2015, and claims benefit of 62/232,045 09/24/2015, and claims benefit of 62/232,054 09/24/2015, and claims benefit of 62/232,050 09/24/2015, and claims benefit of 62/232,065 09/24/2015, and claims benefit of 62/232,097 09/24/2015, and claims benefit of 62/232,083 09/24/2015, and claims benefit of 62/232,075 09/24/2015, and claims benefit of 62/232,090 09/24/2015, and claims benefit of 62/232,035 09/24/2015, and claims benefit of 62/207,561 08/20/2015, and claims benefit of 62/113,749 02/09/2015, and claims benefit of 62/105,468 01/20/2015.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or § 112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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. See 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); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.131(c). A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional, the reply must be complete. MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to MPEP 1490(V)(A).
Claims 21-23, 25, 27, 31-32, 34-39, and 46-51 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,538,114 in view of Ling, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0013347.
Claim 21 of the instant application is broader and fully encompasses the method steps of patent claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,538,114 except for the steps of:
“determining . . . that, during a period of time, the computing device is in a vehicle being driven by a user” and
“determining . . . a usage percentage representing how often an executable application is active on the computing device during the period of time, the usage percentage comprising at least one of a mileage percentage or a time percentage”.
Moreover, as supported by the disclosure of Ling US 2013/0013347 at paras. 221-223:
“[0222] Data may be stored or processed in relation to a trip. A trip may start when motion is detected or when the vehicle ignition is turned on (or data, such as speed data, is first detected or received and vehicle voltage exceeds a programmable threshold) and ends when motion ends or when the ignition of the vehicle is turned off (or when data, such as speed data, is not detected or no communication occurs within a programmable time period or vehicle voltage falls below a programmable threshold, or in response to an insurer's or other entities command). In alternative devices 300, one or more combinations of these conditions may identify trips (e.g., a beginning and/or end of a trip). When motion sensors are used, a physical mechanism or electronic sensor may quantify motion. The device may be integrated with or in communication with the device 300 or a vehicle. In many applications, the device 300 may provide data that allow programs to reach conclusions. If a high percentage of the recorded trips are short (e.g., below some threshold distance and/or time), then a system may conclude that the vehicle is garaged in an urban area or is used primarily for city driving. In some analyses, the speed at which the vehicle is driven during the short trips may influence (or be a factor in) such conclusions.”
Therefore, as to the determination of a usage percentage representing how often the application is active, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the determination of an inactive mobile application for a determination of an active mobile application as a driver’s usage percentage, and the resulting determination means would have been predictable.
Claims 31 and 39 are substantially similar to claim 21, thus, they are rejected on the same grounds.
Application 17/975,925
US Patent No. 11,538,114
21. A computer-implemented method of automatically modifying an electronic document based on usage of an executable application, the method comprising:
1. A computer-implemented method of updating an auto insurance policy, the method comprising:
determining, by a computing device, based at least in part on sensor data captured by one or more sensors of the computing device, that, during a period of time, the computing device is in a vehicle being driven by a user;
based on determining that, during the period of time, the computing device is in the vehicle being driven, determining, by the computing device, a usage percentage representing how often an executable application is active on the computing device during the period of time, the usage percentage comprising at least one of a mileage percentage or a time percentage;
determining, by a computing device, whether an application is installed on a mobile device of a user, the application being configured to periodically broadcast, or direct the transmission of, data at least once during a predetermined time interval, the date being collected or generated by one or more sensors of the mobile device;
receiving, by the application and during the period of time, telematics data associated with the vehicle being driven by the user;
in response to the application being installed on the mobile device, determining, by the computing device, whether the data is received from the application at least once during the predetermined time interval;
transmitting, by the application and to a server, a broadcast including (i) the telematics data associated with the vehicle, and (ii) the usage percentage indicating how often the application is active on the computing device during the period of time; and
in response to the data being not received at least once during the predetermined time interval, determining, by the computing device, that the application is inactive on the mobile device of the user; and
updating a term in an electronic document based at least in part on the telematics data and the usage percentage representing how often the application is active on the computing device during the period of time.
updating or adjusting, by the computing device and in response to determining that the application is inactive, an amount of insurance discount.
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 21-23, 25, 27, 31-32, 34-39, and 46-51 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. (MPEP 2106). The claims are directed to a method, system, and apparatus which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES). The recitation of the claimed invention is analyzed as follows, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced.
Claim 21 recites the limitations of:
A computer-implemented method of automatically modifying an electronic document based on usage of an executable application, the method comprising:
determining, by a computing device, based at least in part on sensor data captured by one or more sensors of the computing device, that, during a period of time, the computing device is in a vehicle being driven by a user;
based on determining that, during the period of time, the computing device is in the vehicle being driven, determining, by the computing device, a usage percentage representing how often an executable application is active on the computing device during the period of time, the usage percentage comprising at least one of a mileage percentage or a time percentage;
receiving, by the application and during the period of time, telematics data associated with the vehicle being driven by the user;
transmitting, by the application and to a server, a broadcast including (i) the telematics data associated with the vehicle, and (ii) the usage percentage indicating how often the application is active on the computing device during the period of time; and
updating a term in an electronic document based at least in part on the telematics data and the usage percentage representing how often the application is active on the computing device during the period of time.
The claim as a whole recites a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to facilitate updating a document, such as an insurance policy premium or discount. This is a fundamental economic practice of a financial transaction; a commercial interaction, such as for business relations; and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which are certain methods of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, the claims cover the use of a computing device for collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to facilitate updating a document, such as an insurance policy premium or discount. As the steps could be performed by a human without a computer, the claim limitations fall within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.
Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A, prong 1: YES).
Moreover, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than reciting a “A computer-implemented method of automatically modifying an electronic document based on usage of an executable application, the method comprising:”, “a computing device”, “one or more sensors of the computing device “, “an executable application”, and “a server”, to perform the steps of “determining” and “updating”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being a certain method for organizing human activity. The claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application. The claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to facilitate updating an insurance policy premium or discount in a computer environment. The additional computer elements recited in the claim limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception utilizing generic computer components.
For example, the Specification at [0080] discloses “The following details regarding the determination of an anomalous condition are explained in this section with reference to computing device 300, which may be a mobile computing device or "mobile device"(e.g., smart phone, laptop, tablet, phablet, smart watch, wearable electronics, etc.). In the present aspect, computing device 300 may be implemented as any suitable computing device, such as a mobile computing device (e.g., mobile computing device 100, as shown in Figure 1). In another aspect, computing device 300 may be implemented as an on-board vehicle computer (e.g., on-board vehicle computer 114, as shown in Figure 1). In still other aspects, computing device 300 may be implemented as a device external to a vehicle (e.g., remote computing device 206 or smart infrastructure component 208, as shown in Figure 2).”
Thus, the specification supports that general purpose computers or computer components are utilized to implement the steps of the abstract idea.
Merely implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole, in viewing the additional elements both individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A prong two: No)
The claim does not include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “A computer-implemented method of automatically modifying an electronic document based on usage of an executable application, the method comprising:”, “a computing device”, “one or more sensors of the computing device “, “an executable application”, and “a server”, to perform the steps of “determining” and “updating”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. The claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to facilitate updating a document, such as an insurance policy premium or discount in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Such additional elements are determined to not contain an inventive concept according to MPEP 2106.05(f). It should be noted that (1) the “recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”, and (2) “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice, commercial interaction, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, mental process, or mathematical calculation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”.
Claims 31 and 39 are substantially similar to claim 21, thus, they are rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 31 recites the additional elements of “A computing device for updating an auto insurance policy, the computing device comprising: a processor; and a memory having a plurality of instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, causes the computing device to:”
Claim 39 recites the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for updating an auto insurance policy, the instructions when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the computing device to:”.
For similar reasons as explained above with regard to claim 21, under Step 2A, prong two, these additional elements are merely applying generic computer components to implement the abstract idea. Under Step 2B, when viewing the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception itself as the claimed computer-related technologies are mere tools for implementing the abstract idea as explained with regard to claim 21.
Dependent claims 22-23, 25, 27, 32, 34-38, and 46-51 merely limit the abstract idea and do not recite any further additional elements beyond the cited abstract idea and the elements addressed above, thus, they do not amount to significantly more. The dependent claims are abstract for the reasons presented above because there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Thus, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2B: No)
Therefore, claims 21-23, 25, 27, 31-32, 34-39, and 46-51 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons:
As to the Double Patenting rejection for now pending claims 21-23, 25, 27, 31-32, 34-39, and 46-51, Examiner notes that the arguments are moot in light of the new grounds for rejection.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments as to the § 101 rejections for now pending claims 21-23, 25, 27, 31-32, 34-39, and 46-51, Examiner notes the following:
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner disagrees and notes that claim as a whole recites a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to facilitate updating a document, such as an insurance policy premium or discount. This is a fundamental economic practice of a financial transaction; a commercial interaction, such as for business relations; and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which are certain methods of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, the claims cover the use of a computing device for collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to facilitate updating a document, such as an insurance policy premium or discount. As the steps could be performed by a human without a computer, the claim limitations fall within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.
Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding the applicant's argument that the amended features would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner disagrees notes that the additional elements of the computer system - a “A computer-implemented method of automatically modifying an electronic document based on usage of an executable application, the method comprising:”, “a computing device”, “one or more sensors of the computing device “, “an executable application”, and “a server”, to perform the steps of “determining” and “updating”, in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims at issue covers collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data to facilitate updating a document, such as an insurance policy premium or discount. The claims invoke the “A computer-implemented method of automatically modifying an electronic document based on usage of an executable application, the method comprising:”, “a computing device”, “one or more sensors of the computing device “, “an executable application”, and “a server”, to perform the steps of “determining” and “updating” merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a certain method of organizing human activity or mental process or mathematical calculation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05 (f))
Additionally, Applicant argues at page 11 that the “claims provide improvements relative to conventional techniques of collecting accurate vehicle telematics to improve vehicle safety and vehicle navigation.”
Examiner notes that while the specification may discuss the relevant vehicle safety and vehicle navigation, these alleged improvements are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Vehicle safety and vehicle navigation improvements are not claimed and the claims themselves do not include limitations that implement any specific improvement to computer technology or another technical field.
Finally, the Applicant argues that the claims are directed to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner disagrees, however, and notes that, as explained above in the instant rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, that the various specific, discrete steps carried out by the computer system are a routine, well-understood, and conventional function of a generic computer and, thus, are not sufficient to add significantly more. Per the specification, the recited computer elements are described only at a high level of generality, (see Spec. at para. [0080]). In view of the specification, the application of the computer elements is merely being applied to the abstract idea.
The other limitations which are simply supporting the abstract idea correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity which do not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter. Also, the functionality here is already present in the recited hardware, which is merely routine and conventional. Collecting, analyzing, and transmitting data is routine and conventional. There is no technological problem or solution identified. This is merely a business solution to transfer data between devices. (MPEP 2106.05 (f))
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is available for review on Form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 MERRITT J HASBROUCK whose telephone number is (571)272-3109. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Christine Tran can be reached on 571-272-8103. 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.
/MERRITT J HASBROUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695