4DETAILED 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 29 June 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-23 of US Application No. 18/071,176 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 11-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 and added claims 21-23. 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 29 June 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The previous rejections are maintained. Applicant amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17 and argues that the amended claims are eligible under § 101 because they claims are not directed to a mental process, i.e., abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, claim 1 recites “transmitting . . . a driver classification generated based on the probability”. Claims 9 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations. Transmitting the driver classification requires generation of the classification based on the probability. Generating a driver classification based on the probability may be performed mentally, such as by classifying the driver based on a comparison of the probability to a criteria.
Second, claim 1 recites “measuring a number of taps on a touchscreen of a telematics device using the touchscreen of the telematics device . . . wherein the number of taps is indicative of a probability that the current drive is a ridesharing drive”. This limitation, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, may be categorized as either a judicial exception or an additional element. For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses mentally counting the number of taps on the touchscreen as the user taps the touchscreen. In addition, measuring the taps, either mentally or in some other manner, is also data gathering, which may be characterized as an additional element. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion that the Examiner’s previous characterization of the instant limitation as a concession that the limitation does not recite a mental process (see REMARKS at page 11), the Examiner has made no such concession simply by previously characterizing the limitation as an additional element.
Therefore, the Examiner maintains that claim 1, 9, and 17 recite an abstract idea and further maintains the rejections of claims 1, 9, and 17 under § 101 for the reasons indicated below.
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 “measuring a number of taps on a touchscreen of a telematics device using the touchscreen of the telematics device . . . wherein the number of taps is indicative of a probability that the current drive is a ridesharing drive” and “a driver classification generated based on the probability”. 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. For example, a person may mentally count the number of touches on a touchscreen as the touches are made. Further, a person can mentally determine a classification based on a probability by comparing the probability to a criteria. 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 “the telematics device disposed within a vehicle on a current drive and operated by a driver,” and “transmitting, by one or more computers, . . . to one or more devices”. Claims 9 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Claim 9 also recites the additional elements “a telematics device comprising a touchscreen”, “one or more computers”, and “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”, while claim 17 recites 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. Using a touchscreen to measure taps is data gathering. Transmitting a driver classification using one or more computers is data outputting. Therefore, these additional elements are extra-solution activity and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 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 and transmitting data over a network. Transmitting driver classification using a computer is transmitting data over a network. Finally, providing a telematics device in 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 11-13 further define a previously-identified abstract idea, i.e., determining first data. Claims 3-5 and 11-13 do not recite any additional elements. Therefore, claims 3-5 and 11-13 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 second data indicative of an expected distance driven by the driver while ridesharing”, “determining third data indicative of an expected time driven by the driver while ridesharing”, or “determining 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.
Claims 21-23 are rejected for the same reasons as previous claims 1, 9, and 17 as indicated in the previous Detailed Action, dated 02 April 2026.
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