DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for continued examination of application 17/986,032 (11/14/22) filed on 08/01/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3 - 5, 7 - 10 and 21 - 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1, 3 - 5, 7 - 10 and 21 - 23 is/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.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1, is/are directed to a machine (i.e., a apparatus).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is involves collecting movement data of an operated vehicle; receiving telematics data including the movement data indicating the vehicle performed a preventative action preventing a driver of the vehicle from performing an unsafe driving action, the preventative action including at least one of: automatic braking to prevent a collision, a steering correction to prevent a lane departure, or a speed limitation to prevent excessive speeding; determining an identity of the vehicle from a plurality of vehicles associated with the driver, the identification based on comparing the telematics data indicating vehicle performance with a list of the plurality of vehicles;
generating a driving score for the driver based, at least in part, on the telematics data indicating the vehicle performed the preventative action and the identity of the vehicle;
sending, to the driver of the vehicle, the driving score and generating an alert to the driver associated with the driving score; and receiving a validation of the driving score from an entity different than the driver, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (vehicle and movement data of the operated vehicle; driving score); commercial or legal (vehicle and movement data of the operated vehicle; driving score); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (collect, receive, determine, generate, send).
The mere nominal recitation of an “apparatus” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to involves collecting movement data of an operated vehicle; receiving telematics data including the movement data indicating the vehicle performed a preventative action preventing a driver of the vehicle from performing an unsafe driving action, the preventative action including at least one of: automatic braking to prevent a collision, a steering correction to prevent a lane departure, or a speed limitation to prevent excessive speeding; determining an identity of the vehicle from a plurality of vehicles associated with the driver, the identification based on comparing the telematics data indicating vehicle performance with a list of the plurality of vehicles; generating a driving score for the driver based, at least in part, on the telematics data indicating the vehicle performed the preventative action and the identity of the vehicle; sending, to the driver of the vehicle, the driving score and generating an alert to the driver associated with the driving score; and receiving a validation of the driving score from an entity different than the driver.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting an “apparatus”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. In other words, the claim encompasses the user manually collecting movement data of an operated vehicle; receiving telematics data including the movement data indicating the vehicle performed a preventative action preventing a driver of the vehicle from performing an unsafe driving action, the preventative action including at least one of: automatic braking to prevent a collision, a steering correction to prevent a lane departure, or a speed limitation to prevent excessive speeding; determining an identity of the vehicle from a plurality of vehicles associated with the driver, the identification based on comparing the telematics data indicating vehicle performance with a list of the plurality of vehicles; generating a driving score for the driver based, at least in part, on the telematics data indicating the vehicle performed the preventative action and the identity of the vehicle; sending, to the driver of the vehicle, the driving score and generating an alert to the driver associated with the driving score; and receiving a validation of the driving score from an entity different than the driver.
The mere nominal recitation of an “apparatus” does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This/these limitation(s) recite a mental process. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “an apparatus comprising: a telematics device” and “one or more processors; and memory” performing the steps. The combination of additional elements of the “apparatus” receiving “from telematics device” and “using a first network connection with the telematics device” telematics data including the movement data. The combination of additional elements of the “apparatus” sending “to a computing device associated with the driver of the vehicle” and “using a second network connection” the driving score. The combination of additional elements of receiving a validation of the driving score “using a third network connection” and “from a computing device associated with an entity different than the computing device associated with the driver”. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “collect”, “receive”, “send” etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determine”, “generate”, etc. step(s) as claimed). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering vehicle and movement data of the operated vehicle), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim is recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the step(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. NOTE: (a) The claim is exclusively from the perspective of the “apparatus”. (b) Although a “computing device associated with the driver of the vehicle” and “a computing device associated with an entity different than the computing device associated with the driver” are mentioned in the claim, the “computing device associated with the driver of the vehicle” and “computing device associated with an entity different than the computing device associated with the driver” are merely interacting with the claimed “apparatus”. Applicant is not claiming positively recited steps or acts performed by the “computing device associated with the driver of the vehicle” and “computing device associated with an entity different than the computing device associated with the driver” themselves.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 11/14/22 does not provide any indication that the claimed invention incorporates anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Coleman, Hagelstein, Rubin, Sukkarie and Bowne operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “collect”, “receive”, “send” etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determine”, “generate”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “collect”, “receive”, “send” etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determine”, “generate”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 - 5, 7 - 10 and 21 - 23 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “receive, from telematics device, using a first network connection with the telematics device, telematics data including the movement data collected by the telematics device indicating the vehicle performed a preventative action preventing a driver of the vehicle from performing an unsafe driving action, the preventative action including at least one of: automatic braking to prevent a collision, a steering correction to prevent a lane departure, or a speed limitation to prevent excessive speeding” and “generate a driving score for the driver based, at least in part, on the telematics data indicating the vehicle performed the preventative action and the identity of the vehicle”, but it is unclear where support may be found in applicant’s specification as filed 11/14/22 for this limitation.
Although there appears to be support for the receipt of data captured by a telematics device pertaining to at least “speed”, “braking”, “steering” and “lane departures” in at least para. [0005] [0022] of applicant’s specification as filed 11/14/22, it is unclear where support may be found for “the telematics device indicating the vehicle performed a preventative action preventing a driver of the vehicle from performing an unsafe driving action, the preventative action including at least one of: automatic braking to prevent a collision, a steering correction to prevent a lane departure, or a speed limitation to prevent excessive speeding” and “generate a driving score for the driver based, at least in part, on the telematics data indicating the vehicle performed the preventative action and the identity of the vehicle”.
Claim 1 recites, “receive, using a third network connection, a validation of the driving score from a computing device associated with an entity different than the computing device associated with the driver”, but it is unclear where support may be found in applicant’s specification as filed 11/14/22 for this limitation.
Although there appears to specification support for the driving score being validated by an entity different than the driver (e.g., validating agency) in at least para. [0005] [0006] [0032] of applicant’s specification as filed 11/14/22, it is unclear where support may be found for the limitation as claimed. Applicant’s specification describes how the validated driving score may be sent to one or more third parties (e.g., financial institution, insurance company, credit agency, department of motor vehicles), but it does not describe the return of the validated driving score to the apparatus comprising the telematics device as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
Withdrawn in light of the terminal disclaimer(s) filed 8/1/25.
101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1)Applicant argues the claim(s) do not recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Fundamental economic principles or practices relate to the economy and commerce. The claimed invention encompasses fundamental economic principles or practices as it relates to insurance (e.g., vehicle and movement data of the operated vehicle; driving score). This interpretation is consistent with the prosecution history of the instant application.
For example, para. [0006] [0037] of applicant’s specification as filed 03/05/25 states:
[0006] In at least one embodiment, the driving score is validated by a validating agency. The validated driving score may be sent to one or more third parties. The third parties may be one or more of a financial institution, an insurance company, a credit agency, a department of motor vehicles. The third party may utilize the driving score in aspects of its business. The driving score may be sent to and stored on a device. The device may be a computing device or may be a portable device, such as a key fob or a mobile telephone.
[0037] The driving score may be used and accepted by all insurance companies. The insurance companies may use the driving score to determine an appropriate insurance policy or an appropriate rate for an insurance policy of a customer. In at least one embodiment, the driving score may be used by a customer to evaluate and select the best insurance policy from a plurality of insurance companies.
See also, at least claims 1 as filed (08/01/25).
The claimed invention encompasses commercial or legal interactions. The claimed invention relates to insurance (e.g., vehicle and movement data of the operated vehicle; driving score). Insurance, in the instant scenario, pertains to agreements in the form of “contracts”, “legal obligations”, and “business relations”.
The claimed invention encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., collect, receive, determine, generate, send, etc.).
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Mental Processes
The claimed invention is directed to mental processes. The claimed invention encompasses observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions (e.g., “determine an identity of the vehicle from a plurality of vehicles associated with the driver, the identification based on comparing the telematics data indicating vehicle performance with a list of the plurality of vehicles; generate a driving score for the driver based, at least in part, on the telematics data indicating the vehicle performed the preventative action and the identity of the vehicle” and “generate an alert to the driver associated with the driving score”) which are examples of mental processes.
Contrary to applicant’s arguments, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid. Similarly, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Although claims 1, 3 - 5, 7 - 10 and 21 - 23 suggest the steps or acts occur on a computer (i.e., “telematics device”, “one or more processors”, “memory” in apparatus claims 1, 3 - 5, 7 - 10 and 21 - 23), nothing forecloses applicant’s claimed invention from being performed by a human and thus applicant’s claimed invention is still directed to a mental process. With respect to applicant’s arguments about the “computing device associated with the driver” and “computing device associated with an entity different than the computing device associated with the driver”, these devices are serving as proxies for human operators (e.g., driver, entity different than the driver) that may perform similar functions.
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
(2)Applicant argues the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Applicant suggests the claimed invention presents a “practical application” because it provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (e.g., “improvement to the technical field of driving analysis by providing an apparatus that provides feedback about a driver's driving behavior (e.g., vehicle performed a preventative action) to a driver, and validation of the driver's driving behavior from an entity different than the driver to provide safe driving”). See pg. 9 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 08/01/25. The Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments suggesting the claimed invention provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field suggests the applicant believes the technical aspects of the invention are substantial. There exists alternative perspectives however.
Insurance is directed to the underlying abstract idea, not the functioning of the computer itself. What applicant is really arguing is the use of a computer as a tool or the benefits of automation itself.
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception is not
not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP § 2106.05(f). Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05(f).
Many of the features applicant relies upon are “insignificant”. For example, they amount to “necessary data gathering and outputting” (e.g., “a telematics device configured to collect movement data of an operated vehicle”; “receive, from telematics device, using a first network connection with the telematics device, telematics data including the movement data collected by the telematics device indicating the vehicle performed a preventative action preventing a driver of the vehicle from performing an unsafe driving action, the preventative action including at least one of: automatic braking to prevent a collision, a steering correction to prevent a lane departure, or a speed limitation to prevent excessive speeding”; “send, to a computing device associated with the driver of the vehicle using a second network connection, the driving score …..”; and “receive, using a third network connection, a validation of the driving score from a computing device associated with an entity different than the computing device associated with the driver”). For example, the limitations are not significant as to impose meaningful limitations on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention (e.g., “receive, using a third network connection, a validation of the driving score from a computing device associated with an entity different than the computing device associated with the driver”). Applicant’s claimed invention is exclusively directed to the “apparatus”. Although applicant appears to argue the significance of the “validation”, the “validation” is performed by another, unclaimed device (i.e., “computing device associated with an entity different than the computing device associated with the driver”) is therefore nominally or tangentially related to the claimed invention at best.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
Collecting information (e.g., “a telematics device configured to collect movement data of an operated vehicle”; “receive, from telematics device, using a first network connection with the telematics device, telematics data including the movement data collected by the telematics device indicating the vehicle performed a preventative action preventing a driver of the vehicle from performing an unsafe driving action, the preventative action including at least one of: automatic braking to prevent a collision, a steering correction to prevent a lane departure, or a speed limitation to prevent excessive speeding”; “send, to a computing device associated with the driver of the vehicle using a second network connection, the driving score …..”; and “receive, using a third network connection, a validation of the driving score from a computing device associated with an entity different than the computing device associated with the driver”); analyzing it (e.g., “determine an identity of the vehicle from a plurality of vehicles associated with the driver, the identification based on comparing the telematics data indicating vehicle performance with a list of the plurality of vehicles; generate a driving score for the driver based, at least in part, on the telematics data indicating the vehicle performed the preventative action and the identity of the vehicle”; and “generate an alert to the driver associated with the driving score”); and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis merely indicates a field of use or technical environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (h).
(3)Applicant argues the claimed invention provides an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 11/14/22 does not provide any indication that the claimed invention incorporates anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Coleman, Hagelstein, Rubin, Sukkarie and Bowne operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “collect”, “receive”, “send” etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determine”, “generate”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “collect”, “receive”, “send” etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determine”, “generate”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 - 5, 7 - 10 and 21 - 23 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
(4) Applicant argues example 42.
With respect to claim 1 in Example 42, the claim was found eligible because it provided a practical application even though a judicial exception (i.e., method of organizing human activity) was present. Claim 1 in Example 42 provided an improvement to electronic medical records by providing remote access to users over a network; converting non-standardized updated information into a standardized format and storing the same; and automatically generating a message whenever updated information was stored and transmitting the message to the users over the network in real-time. These features were an improvement over prior electronic medical records where records in disparate locations were often stored locally in non-standard formats; and where medical providers themselves had to continually monitor the medical records for updates or encounter incomplete medical records. In contrast, the facts of applicant’s claimed invention are different and applicant’s claimed invention does not provide a similar technological improvement.
First, Example 42 provides a network-centric environment where a plurality of users have remote access over a network. Applicant’s claimed invention is merely a device (i.e., “apparatus”) automating tasks that could have similarly been performed by a human operator. The device (i.e., “apparatus”) only sends the “driving score” to one other party (i.e., “computing device associated with the driver of the vehicle”) over the ”second network connection”. Second, in Example 42, the improved function is because updated information provided in the non-standardized format is converted to the standardized format. Even if sending the driving score in the claimed invention can be compared to the transmitted message described in Example 42, there is nothing akin to the conversion of updated information in a non-standardized format to a standardized-format that is also described. Third, in Example 42, a graphical user interface is described that is used by a user to provide actual updated information. In the claimed invention there is no graphical user interface via which updates or changes are made to the driving score. Applicant’s alleged “improvement” is really directed to the underlying abstract idea.
112
Please note the rejections withdrawn and maintained in light of applicant’s arguments and/ or amendments.
Prior Art
Withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments and/ or amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, 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, Christine Tran can be reached at 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695