Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 05, 2025, has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on December 05, 2025. Claims 1-20 were pending in the Application. Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 20 are amended. No new claims have been added. No new claims have been canceled, with claims 5, 12 and 19 remaining canceled. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claims 1, 8, and 15. Thus claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection according to Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment dated November 12, 2025. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts “that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 at least because the claims integrate any abstract ideas allegedly recited by the claims into a practical application by improving technology or a technological field; that the USPTO's recently issued "Memorandum re: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101" from August 4, 2025 (hereinafter the "Memo") states: "An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology or a technical field is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome"; rather than merely "describing the concept of 'insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation' using computer technology" (as stated in the Office Action), the claims recite a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, and thus improve an existing technology; using conventional techniques, in prior systems, vehicles might be sent to a location of interest associated with a weather event after the occurrence of the weather event, but would have no way of determining whether mitigating techniques were implemented at the location of interest prior to the occurrence of a particular weather event, and using conventional techniques, permanent sensors would need to be installed near all possible locations of interest prior to the occurrence of any weather events in order to capture this data; and the present Application unconventionally provides a particular solution in which vehicles that are incidentally parked or travelling near a location of interest can be used to capture sensor data associated with the location of interest prior to the occurrence of a weather event at the location of interest.”
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20240062307 A1, para 6), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘307 A1, para 6), discloses that the invention generally relates “to avoid or decrease payouts that happen due to a lack of mitigation techniques being used by the agribusiness, the agribusiness may be offered a discount on the parametric insurance policy based upon whether or not they have implemented various mitigation techniques.”, which recites an abstract idea of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation”, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 1 provides additional evidence, and recites the limitations of “determining, by one or more processors, an indication of an occurrence of a weather event associated with a location of interest; determining, by one or more processors, an indication of one or more possible mitigation techniques for mitigating damage caused by the weather event associated with the location of interest; receiving, by one or more processors, indications of location data captured by location sensors associated with each of a plurality of vehicles over a period of time prior to the occurrence of the weather event, each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles having at least one driver or passenger; comparing, by one or more processors, the location data captured by the location sensors associated with each of the plurality of vehicles to a location of interest; identifying, by one or more processors, based upon the comparing, one or more vehicles, of the plurality of vehicles, within a threshold proximity of the location of interest over the period of time; retrieving, by one or more processors, sensor data captured by sensors associated with the identified one or more vehicles within the threshold proximity of the location of interest over the period of time; determining, by one or more processors, based upon applying a trained machine learning model to the sensor data captured by the sensors associated with the identified one or more vehicles over the period of time, an indication of whether any of the one or more possible mitigation techniques have been performed at the location of interest over the period of time; and automatically initiating, by one or more processors, a monetary transfer to an individual associated with the location of interest based upon the indication of the occurrence of the weather event associated with the location of interest, and based upon determining whether any of the one or more possible mitigation techniques have been performed at the location of interest over the period of time”, where the italicized claim language represents the abstract idea of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation.” (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim (the bolded claim language), such as “autonomous and connected vehicles”, “one or more processors”, “location sensors associated with each of a plurality of vehicles”, “each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles having at least one driver or passenger”, “the location sensors associated with each of the plurality of vehicles”, “each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles having at least one driver or passenger”, “the location sensors associated with each of the plurality of vehicles”, “one or more vehicles, of the plurality of vehicles”, “sensors associated with the identified one or more vehicles”, and “based upon applying a trained machine learning model”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation.”
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation,” grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk).”
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation.” The claims are not directed to improving computers or related technologies, but improving the method for “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation.” For potential improvement in an abstract idea of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation,” it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. an insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 8 also recites the abstract idea of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation”, as well as the additional elements of “a computer system”, “autonomous and connected vehicles”, “a plurality of vehicles”, “one or more processors”, “a memory”, “location sensors associated with each of the plurality of vehicles”, “one or more vehicles, of the plurality of vehicles”, “sensors associated with the identified one or more vehicles”, and “based upon applying a trained machine learning model”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more processors” and “a memory”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology nor a technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 8 is non-statutory.
Claim 15 also recites the abstract idea of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation”, as well as the additional elements “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “autonomous and connected vehicles”, “one or more processors”, “location sensors associated with each of the plurality of vehicles”, “one or more vehicles, of the plurality of vehicles”, “sensors associated with the identified one or more vehicles”, and “based upon applying a trained machine learning model”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more processors” and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology nor a technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 15 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner reiterates the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-4 and 6-7 are directed to a “method”; claims 8-11 and 13-14 are directed to a “system”; and claims 15-18 and 20 are directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation,” which is a form of fundamental economic principles or practices (i.e., organizing human activity), and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “determining, by one or more processors, an indication of an occurrence of a weather event associated with a location of interest; determining, by one or more processors, an indication of one or more possible mitigation techniques for mitigating damage caused by the weather event associated with the location of interest; receiving, by one or more processors, indications of location data captured by location sensors associated with each of a plurality of vehicles over a period of time prior to the occurrence of the weather event, each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles having at least one driver or passenger; comparing, by one or more processors, the location data captured by the location sensors associated with each of the plurality of vehicles to a location of interest; identifying, by one or more processors, based upon the comparing, one or more vehicles, of the plurality of vehicles, within a threshold proximity of the location of interest over the period of time; retrieving, by one or more processors, sensor data captured by sensors associated with the identified one or more vehicles within the threshold proximity of the location of interest over the period of time; determining, by one or more processors, based upon applying a trained machine learning model to the sensor data captured by the sensors associated with the identified one or more vehicles over the period of time, an indication of whether any of the one or more possible mitigation techniques have been performed at the location of interest over the period of time; and automatically initiating, by one or more processors, a monetary transfer to an individual associated with the location of interest based upon the indication of the occurrence of the weather event associated with the location of interest, and based upon determining whether any of the one or more possible mitigation techniques have been performed at the location of interest over the period of time”, where the italicized claim language represents the abstract idea of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation.” (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim (the bolded claim language), such as “autonomous and connected vehicles”, “one or more processors”, “location sensors associated with each of a plurality of vehicles”, “each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles having at least one driver or passenger”, “the location sensors associated with each of the plurality of vehicles”, “each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles having at least one driver or passenger”, “the location sensors associated with each of the plurality of vehicles”, “one or more vehicles, of the plurality of vehicles”, “sensors associated with the identified one or more vehicles”, and “based upon applying a trained machine learning model”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation”.
The limitation of “receiving, by one or more processors, indications of location data captured by location sensors associated with each of a plurality of vehicles over a period of time prior to the occurrence of the weather event, each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles having at least one driver or passenger” as an additional element, is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data from sensors on the vehicles), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more processors” and “location sensors associated with each of the plurality of vehicles”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
The limitation of “receiving, by one or more processors, indications of location data captured by location sensors associated with each of a plurality of vehicles over a period of time prior to the occurrence of the weather event, each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles having at least one driver or passenger” as an additional , is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data from sensors on the vehicles), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 8 also recites the abstract idea of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation”, as well as the additional elements of “a computer system”, “autonomous and connected vehicles”, “a plurality of vehicles”, “one or more processors”, “a memory”, “location sensors associated with each of the plurality of vehicles”, “one or more vehicles, of the plurality of vehicles”, “sensors associated with the identified one or more vehicles”, and “based upon applying a trained machine learning model”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation.”
The limitation of “receiving indications of location data captured by location sensors associated with each of a plurality of vehicles over a period of time prior to the occurrence of the weather event” as an additional element, is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data from sensors on the vehicles), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more processors” and “a memory”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology nor a technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)).
The limitation of “receiving indications of location data captured by location sensors associated with each of a plurality of vehicles over a period of time prior to the occurrence of the weather event” as an additional element, is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data from sensors on the vehicles), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 8 is non-statutory.
Claim 15 also recites the abstract idea of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation”, as well as the additional elements “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “autonomous and connected vehicles”, “one or more processors”, “location sensors associated with each of the plurality of vehicles”, “one or more vehicles, of the plurality of vehicles”, “sensors associated with the identified one or more vehicles”, and “based upon applying a trained machine learning model”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation.”
The limitation of “receiving indications of location data captured by location sensors associated with each of a plurality of vehicles over a period of time prior to the occurrence of the weather event” as an additional element, is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data from sensors on the vehicles), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more processors” and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology nor a technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)).
The limitation of “receiving indications of location data captured by location sensors associated with each of a plurality of vehicles over a period of time prior to the occurrence of the weather event” as an additional element, is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data from sensors on the vehicles), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 15 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20 further describe the abstract idea of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1, 8, and 15.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 18 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “insurance payout based on implemented risk mitigation”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 recite a new additional element of “a weather event database”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology nor a technical field.
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 recite a new additional element of “sensors at locations at which historical mitigation techniques were performed”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology nor a technical field.
Hence, claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kusama et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200189527 A1) – Information Processing System, Program, And Information Processing Method
Kusama recites an information processing system that includes a vehicle and a server that is able to communicate with the vehicle. The server stores weather information indicating the weather. The vehicle receives the weather information from the server and acquires an image in which a scene outside the vehicle is captured when an operating state of an onboard device is not a prescribed operating state corresponding to the weather indicated by the weather information. The vehicle or the server detects the weather from the image. The server updates the weather information to indicate the weather detected from the image when the weather detected from the image and the weather indicated by the weather information do not match and provides information to a client using the updated weather information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN R CHISM whose telephone number is (571)272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 AM – 3:00 PM EST.
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, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached at (571) 270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN CHISM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/MINNAH L SEOH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3618