DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 of US Application No. 18/071,176 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, and 20. Applicant previously canceled claims 2, 10, and 18.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, see REMARKS, filed 05 December 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The previous rejections are maintained. Applicant asserts that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong Two, Step 2A and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. See REMARKS at page 10, last paragraph. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the claims do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application by including additional elements that improve another technology or technological field under Prong Two, Step 2A. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. See MPEP 2106.06(a)(II), second paragraph. As indicated in the specification at ¶ [0025], Applicant’s disclosure is directed to “methods, systems, and computer programs for detecting rideshare behavior using telematics data. Telematics data can include, for example, data collected by a device that indicates properties of a driver's vehicular trip. Such properties of a driver's vehicular trip can include, for example, vehicle acceleration, vehicle speed, vehicle trajectory, or map matched location of the vehicle with road segment. The present disclosure can estimate a probability (pi) that a particular drive (i) is a rideshare driver as opposed to, for example, a personal drive. The probability (pi) can be determined as function of telematics data of the particular drive (i), a telematics data obtained from a plurality of historical by the driver, or a combination thereof.” In short, the improvement is detecting rideshare behavior by analyzing telematics data. Applicant’s specification does not suggest that the improvement is in the collection of one particular type of telematics data, such as the number of screen taps on a touch screen, as suggested by Applicant. Applicant discloses, for example, telematics data other than screen tapping data, e.g., road segment data (¶ [0037]-[0040]), stop location data (¶ [0041]-[0045] and [0045]-[0047], door slamming data (¶ [0048]-[0049], device mounting data (¶ [0050]-[0051], likely spots data (¶ [0054]-[0056]), plugged-in data (¶ [0057]-[0059]), slower driving data (¶ [0065]-[0067]), loop-back data (¶ [0068]-[0071]), driving time data (¶ [0072]-[0074]), trip length data (¶ [0075]-[0078]), average speed data (¶ [0079]-[0081], which may be used to detect the rideshare behavior. Further, Applicant’s specification does not assert any improvement in the actual collection of the telematics data. Rather, Applicant’s improvement is the detection, i.e., determination, of rideshare behavior by analyzing telematics data. The claimed steps/functions for detecting ridesharing behavior from the telematics data is found in the identified abstract ideas, i.e., determining numerical values, determining a probability, and determining a driver classification.
Applicant also asserts in support of this argument that measuring touchscreen data using a screen of a telematics device is not simply pre-solution activity or mere data gathering because the detected taps are part of the solution. In determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(e)(3). In the instant claims, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require the touchscreen tap data. Therefore, measuring touchscreen tap data is merely data gathering.
Therefore, the Examiner concludes that the claims do not improve another technology or technological field.
Second, measuring touchscreen data using a screen of a telematics device, the telematics device disposed within a vehicle on a current drive and operated by a driver does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art. As indicated in the § 101 rejection below, Dellock et al. (US 2019/0001933 A1) discloses that a computer 40 coupled to display 14 may count and record a quantity of user touches on the display 14. See ¶ [0055]. The display may be carried by a vehicle instrument panel 26 or located elsewhere, such as display 14’ coupled to a center console 28. See ¶ [0035]. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Based on the above, the previous rejections of claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 under § 101 are maintained.
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, 3-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) 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); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. With respect to mental processes, 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 (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
In the instant application, independent claim 1 recites “determining, by one or more computers and based on the telematics data and the prior telematics data, a plurality of numerical values representing a plurality of drive features comprising a mounted user device tapping value, obtained using the touchscreen data and the prior touchscreen data and corresponding to a measure of an amount of tapping performed by the driver during the current drive or the plurality of prior drives”, “determining, by the one or more computers and based on a number of detected taps on the screen of the telematics device by the driver during a predefined segment of the current drive, a probability that the current drive is a ridesharing drive”, and “determining, by the one or more computers, a driver classification for the driver based on the first data”. Independent claims 9 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations. These claim limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, may be performed in the human mind. Performing the limitations using one or more computers does not distinguish the limitations from mental processes that can be performed in the human mind. In addition, determining numerical values that represent a measure of road diversity or stop diversity and determining a probability are mathematical calculations (see ¶ [0039], [0083]). Therefore, these limitations are abstract ideas and claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to a judicial exception.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use 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. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses 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.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
In the instant application, claims 1, 9, and 17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claim 1 recites the additional elements “measuring touchscreen data using a screen of a telematics device, the telematics device disposed within a vehicle on a current drive and operated by a driver”, “receiving, by one or more computers, for the current drive for the driver and from the telematics device located in the vehicle, telematics data comprising the touchscreen data” and “obtaining, by the one or more computers prior telematics data for each of a plurality of prior drives for the driver, the prior telematics data comprising prior touchscreen data”. Claims 9 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Claims 9 and 17 also recite the additional element “one or more computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations”. Adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Data gathering and outputting are extra-solution activity. Measuring touchscreen data using a screen of a telematics device, receiving telematics data comprising touchscreen data, and obtaining prior telematics data are all examples of data gathering. Therefore, these additional elements are extra-solution activity and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The one or more computers (claims 1, 9, and 17) and the one or more computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations (claims 9 and 17), given their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a computer(s). Using the computer to determine numerical values, determine first data, and determine a driver classification is merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
Finally, even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception renders the claim eligible under §101. Examples that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, 2) simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, 3) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and 4) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examples of generic computing functions that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.
In the instant application, claims 1, 9, and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this particular application, the same analysis above in determining whether the recited additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception is applicable to determine if the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In addition, using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions is well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Generic computing functions include receiving, processing, and storing data and receiving data over a network. Receiving telematics data from a telematics device using a computer is receiving and transmitting data over a network using computers. Obtaining prior telematics data by one or more computers is receiving data using a computer and/or receiving data over a network. Transmitting driver classification using a computer is transmitting data over a network. Finally, measuring touchscreen data using a screen of a telematics device, the telematics device disposed within a vehicle on a current drive and operated by a driver is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Dellock et al. (US 2019/0001933 A1), for example, discloses that a computer 40 coupled to display 14 may count and record a quantity of user touches on the display 14. See ¶ [0055]. The display may be carried by a vehicle instrument panel 26 or located elsewhere, such as display 14’ coupled to a center console 28. See ¶ [0035]. Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Based on the above analysis, claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 3-5 and 10-13 further define a previously-identified abstract idea, i.e., determining first data. Claims 3-5 and 10-13 do not recite any additional elements. Therefore, claims 3-5 and 10-13 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claims 1, 9, and 17.
Claim 6 recites “determining, by one or more computers, second data indicative of an expected distance driven by the driver while ridesharing”, “determining, by one or more computers, third data indicative of an expected time driven by the driver while ridesharing”, or “determining, by one or more computers, fourth data indicative of an expected fraction of a distance or time spent ridesharing by the driver”. Claims 14 and 19 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 6. These limitations may be performed mentally. Claims 6, 14, and 19 do not recite any additional elements. Therefore, claims 6, 14, and 19 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claims 1, 9, and 17.
Claim 7 further defines a previously-identified abstract idea, i.e., determining a driver classification. Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 7. Claims 7 and 15 do not recite any additional elements. Therefore, claims 7 and 15 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9.
Claim 8 further defines a previously-identified abstract idea, i.e., determining a plurality of numerical value. Claims 16 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 8. Claims 8, 16, and 20 do not recite any additional elements. Therefore, claims 8, 16, and 20 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claims 1, 9, and 17.
Conclusion
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 AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights