DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to amendment and response filed on 8/13/25 and IDS filed 8/18/25. Claims 1, 11 and 20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 8/18/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
101: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are moot because of the claims that were amended substantively. Per example, the amended claim 1 recites “recording …, wherein … by a computing entity controlling access rights to the telematics data” which includes an additional element that necessitates a reconsideration of the claims.
As such, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
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 1-20 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 1-10 are directed to a process, claims 11-19 are directed to a machine and claim 20 is directed to an article of manufacture.
When analyzed under prong one of step 2A, see MPEP 2106.04(a), claim 1 recites determining an insurance premium which is a form of organizing human activity (e.g. commercial or legal interaction) and an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Specifically, the claim recites:
receiving, …, … data associated with an insured asset;
analyzing, …, the … data to detect a characteristic associated with the insured asset;
identifying, …, a record on … related to the insured asset, wherein the record includes an indication of … and associated with the characteristic of the insured asset, wherein … to adjust the insurance premium and a data store;
recording, …, the indication of the detected characteristic associated with the insured asset, …;
adjusting, …, the insurance premium associated with the insured asset, wherein … calculate the insurance premium based upon the indication …
When analyzed under prong 2 of step 2A, see MPEP 2106.04(d), claim 1 includes additional elements. The additional elements are:
“[…], by one or more processors, […]”,
“telematics”,
“the blockchain”,
“[…] smart contract deployed on the blockchain […], […] the smart contract includes a set of code configured to […]”,
“[…], by the one or more processors and to the data store of the smart contract, […], wherein the telematics […] is stored in a separate location than the data store by a computing entity controlling access rights to the telematics […]”,
“[…] the one or more processors executing the set of code, […], […] the set of code is configured to […]”.
The additional elements represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate determining an insurance premium into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
With respect to “smart contract deployed on the blockchain” and “the smart contract includes a set of code configured”, they merely describe automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to “wherein the telematics […] is stored in a separate location than the data store by a computing entity controlling access rights to the telematics”, the claim lacks technological details on what “controlling access rights to the telematics” comprises, and as a result, it is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). In addition, it merely describes automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, “the telematics […] is stored in a separate location than the data store” is no more than storing information such as the telematics data and it has been held that using a computer to perform an economic or other task does not provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
When analyzed under step 2B, see MPEP 2106.05, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement determining an insurance premium and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
As to claim 11, the claim also recites the abstract idea of determining an insurance premium, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The claim recites the additional elements of:
a “computer system […], comprising”,
“one or more processors”,
“a non-transitory program memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to”,
“telematics”,
“the blockchain”,
“[…] smart contract deployed on the blockchain […], […] the smart contract includes a set of code configured to […]”,
“[…], by the one or more processors and to the data store of the smart contract, […], wherein the telematics […] is stored in a separate location than the data store by a computing entity controlling access rights to the telematics […]”,
“[…] the one or more processors executing the set of code, […], […] the set of code is configured to […]”.
The additional elements represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate determining an insurance premium into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
With respect to “smart contract deployed on the blockchain” and “the smart contract includes a set of code configured”, they merely describe automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to “wherein the telematics […] is stored in a separate location than the data store by a computing entity controlling access rights to the telematics”, the claim lacks technological details on what “controlling access rights to the telematics” comprises, and as a result, it is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). In addition, it merely describes automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, “the telematics […] is stored in a separate location than the data store” is no more than storing information such as the telematics data and it has been held that using a computer to perform an economic or other task does not provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
When analyzed under step 2B, see MPEP 2106.05, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement determining an insurance premium and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
As to claim 20, the claim also recites the abstract idea of determining an insurance premium, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The claim recites the additional elements of:
a “tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions … using a blockchain, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of a computer system, cause the computer system to”,
“telematics”,
“the blockchain”,
“[…] smart contract deployed on the blockchain […] , […] the smart contract includes a set of code configured to […]”,
“[…], by the one or more processors and to the data store of the smart contract, […], wherein the telematics […] is stored in a separate location than the data store by a computing entity controlling access rights to the telematics […]”,
“[…] the one or more processors executing the set of code, […], […] the set of code is configured to […]”.
The additional elements represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate determining an insurance premium into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
With respect to “smart contract deployed on the blockchain” and “the smart contract includes a set of code configured”, they merely describe automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to “wherein the telematics […] is stored in a separate location than the data store by a computing entity controlling access rights to the telematics”, the claim lacks technological details on what “controlling access rights to the telematics” comprises, and as a result, it is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). In addition, it merely describes automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, “the telematics […] is stored in a separate location than the data store” is no more than storing information such as the telematics data and it has been held that using a computer to perform an economic or other task does not provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
When analyzed under step 2B, see MPEP 2106.05, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement determining an insurance premium and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Hence, claims 1, 11 and 20 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 12 recite “the […] data includes […] data”, and therefore, further describes the abstract idea of determining an insurance premium.
The additional elements of “the insured asset is a vehicle”, “telematics” and “vehicle telematics […] associated with the vehicle” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate determining an insurance premium into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
With respect to “the insured asset is a vehicle” and “vehicle telematics […] associated with the vehicle”, the “vehicle” represents a particular technological environment of field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement determining an insurance premium and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Dependent claims 3 and 13 recite “the characteristic associated with the insured asset is a metric indicative of operation of […]” and “analyzing, […], the […] data to determine the metric indicative of operation of […], wherein the metric indicative of operation of […] is based upon at least one of an acceleration metric, a braking metric, a cornering metric, a responsibility metric, and/or a […] safety feature effectiveness metric”, and therefore, further describes the abstract idea of determining an insurance premium.
The additional elements of the “vehicle”, “…, by the one or more processors, …”, “the vehicle telematics” and “a vehicle safety feature effectiveness metric” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate determining an insurance premium into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
With respect to the “vehicle”, “the vehicle telematics” and “a vehicle safety feature effectiveness metric”, the “vehicle” represents a particular technological environment of field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement determining an insurance premium and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Dependent claims 4 and 14 recite “receiving, […], the […] data from at least one of […] or […]”, and therefore, further describes the abstract idea of determining an insurance premium.
The additional elements of “the vehicle telematics”, “a mobile device associated with the vehicle” and “a vehicle control system of the vehicle” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate determining an insurance premium into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
With respect to the “vehicle”, “the vehicle telematics” and “a vehicle control system of the vehicle”, the “vehicle” represents a particular technological environment of field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement determining an insurance premium and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Dependent claims 5 and 15 recite “the insured asset is a home; and the […] data includes home […] data associated with the home”, and therefore, further describes the abstract idea of determining an insurance premium.
The additional elements of “telematics” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate determining an insurance premium into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement determining an insurance premium and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Dependent claims 6 and 16 recite “the characteristic associated with the insured asset is a metric indicative of operation of the home” and “analyzing, […], the home […] data to determine the metric indicative of operation of the home, wherein the metric indicative of operation of the home is based upon at least one of an electricity usage metric, a water usage metric, a security metric, and/or a loss prevention metric” , and therefore, further describes the abstract idea of determining an insurance premium.
The additional elements of “[…], by the one or more processors, […]” and “telematics” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate determining an insurance premium into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement determining an insurance premium and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology
Dependent claims 7 and 17 recite “receiving, […], the home […] data from at least one of […] associated with the home, […] disposed at the home, and/or […] disposed at the home”, and therefore, further describes the abstract idea of determining an insurance premium.
The additional elements of “[…], by the one or more processors, […]”, “telematics”, “a mobile device”, “a smart device” and “a home controller” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate determining an insurance premium into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement determining an insurance premium and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Dependent claims 8 and 18 recite “[…] in response to detecting a triggering event”, “the triggering event is at least one of (i) a lapsing of a predetermined amount of time, and/or (ii) the indication of the detected characteristic being recorded to […]”, and “[…] includes initiating an insurance premium adjustment for an insurance product associated with the insured asset, wherein the insurance premium adjustment is based upon a set of indications recorded to […]” and “…” and therefore, further describes the abstract idea of determining an insurance premium.
The additional elements of “the smart contract deployed to the blockchain is configured to self-execute to perform an action”, “the action to be performed …”, “performing, via the one or more processors, the action as directed by the smart contract” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate determining an insurance premium into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
With respect to “the smart contract deployed to the blockchain is configured to self-execute to perform an action”, “the action to be performed […]”, “performing, via the one or more processors, the action as directed by the smart contract” merely describe automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to “performing, via the one or more processors, the action as directed by the smart contract”, the claim is silent as to what “directed by the smart contract” comprises, as a result, it is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement determining an insurance premium and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Dependent claims 9 and 19 recite “storing, […], the […] data at a database” and “updating, […], the record on […] to include at least one of (i) an indication of a location at the database at which the […] data may be accessed and/or (ii) a hash of the stored […] data”, and therefore, further describes the abstract idea of determining an insurance premium.
The additional elements of “[…], by the one or more processors, […]”, “telematics” and “the blockchain” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate determining an insurance premium and securing the telematics data related to the insurance with a cryptographic algorithm into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement determining an insurance premium and securing the telematics data related to the insurance with a cryptographic algorithm and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Dependent claim 10 recites “the […] data includes at least one of throttle data, braking data, steering data, cornering data, acceleration data, speed data, direction data, heading data, safety feature data, home occupancy data, water usage data, electricity usage data, location data, date data, and/or time data”, and therefore, further describes the abstract idea of determining an insurance premium.
The additional elements of “telematics” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate determining an insurance premium and securing the telematics data related to the insurance with a cryptographic algorithm into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement determining an insurance premium and securing the telematics data related to the insurance with a cryptographic algorithm and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Conclusion
Reference made of record, not relied upon, pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure includes US 11361388 B1 (Floyd) disclosing blockchain systems and methods for managing usage-based contracts.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Calvin Hewitt II can be reached at 571-272-6709. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/ /EDWARD J BAIRD/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692