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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 07/23/2026.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant asserted that “amended claim 1 recites a particular technological analysis of collected driving data rather than a generalized business recommendation. The recommendation is generated only after execution of the location-dependent quantitative scoring . . .” & “it recites a particularized computational technique for generating driver scores . . .”. However, the idea of calculating the risk score for insurance purposes is based on the modeling technique. Such technique relies on existing technology rather than improves the technological framework. Hence, under the Prong Two Step 2A, the limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regard to the 103 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant amended the claim language with “ ‘determining a driving score . . wherein determining the driving score comprises defining a quantitative scoring model . . .’”. The cited reference Memani discloses the limitation in par. [0052] and [0072]. Please refer to the 103 rejection for further details.
The rejection is 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 1-20 are directed to a system, a method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1-20 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. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide generic computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are grouped together, Claim 15, for instance , recites in part, a computer system for implementing a program that manages a device, comprising: one or more computer devices each having one or more processors and one or more tangible storage devices; and a program embodied on at least one of the one or more storage devices, the program having a plurality of program instructions for execution by the one or more processors, the program instructions comprising instructions for: building a framework of a group of multiple driving candidates to select from to be a driver of a rental vehicle; determining a driving score based on a collected set of data , wherein determining the driving score comprises defining a quantitative scoring model based on driving behavior of each of the multiple driving candidates in various driving conditions and weighting factors according to a location of the rental vehicle;; generating an aggregate ranking of each of the multiple driving candidates based on the driving score; computing an insurance cost for each of the multiple driving candidates based on the driving score; calculating a vehicle rental cost and an insurance cost for each of the multiple driving candidates, based on the driving score; ranking each of the multiple driving candidates based on the respective calculated vehicle rental cost and insurance cost; and recommending a highest ranked candidate as the best driver to receive the best vehicle rental and insurance costs. The limitations are directed to the concept of recommending a driver for better rental and insurance rates – business relations (commercial interactions). Hence, they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as a device, one or more computer devices, one or more processors, one or more tangible storage devices, one or more processors, rental vehicles and other generic computer components to perform receiving, authenticating, translating, and transmitting. The generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (determining, ranking, and recommending) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claims 1, 8 and 15, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of at least a computing device to perform receiving, adding and communicating data are merely additional elements performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. See MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) see MPEP 2106.05(d). Furthermore, the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because they are merely adding the words “apply it” to a judicial exception on a generic computing device. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device associated with the receiving a transaction update associated with recommending better rental and insurance rates is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) collecting set of data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computer system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 3, 10, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) evaluating driver candidates. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computer system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 4, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of charging shared vehicle rental and insurance costs. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computer system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 5, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of notifying insurer of the best driver to adjust and apply additional best rates. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computer system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 6, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of pairing and connecting each of the multiple driving candidates. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computer system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 7, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) redefining a quantitative scoring model. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (reconciliation system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memani et al. (US 2017/0144671 A1) in view of Hsu-Hoffman et al. (US 2017/0221149 A1) in further view of (Lam et al. (US 2009/0303238 A1).
Claims 1, 8, 15 are grouped together. Memani teaches: computing an insurance cost for each of the multiple driving candidates based on the driving score (Memani, see at least par. [0064] “. . . ranking and rating may be used to determine the cost of insurance such as, for example: when vehicle operators are found to qualify for motor vehicle insurance by an insurance company, vehicle operators that are ranked or rated highest pay a lower cost for motor vehicle insurance compared to vehicle operators that are ranked below them . . .”);
calculating a vehicle rental cost and an insurance cost for each of the multiple driving candidates, based on the driving score (Memani, see at least par. [0063] “ Classification, ranking and rating may be further designed for the purpose of determining perks, services, discount and/or surcharge in travel and tourism industry such as, for example: rental car companies using predetermined criteria to determine whether or not to rent to potential vehicle renter; rental car companies determining cost of rental and/or insurance . . . Further, information collected or derived by the system 10 may be used to periodically update the pricing, reward or other services and benefits (e.g. rental car companies offering lower price to operators driving in lower risk geographies or exhibiting lower risk driving behavior etc.)”. Interpretation: Costs of insurance and car rental are determined ;
ranking each of the multiple driving candidates based on the respective calculated vehicle rental cost and insurance cost (Memani, see at least par. [0064] “. . . when vehicle operators are found to qualify for motor vehicle insurance by an insurance company, vehicle operators that are ranked or rated highest pay a lower cost for motor vehicle insurance compared to vehicle operators that are ranked below them; average drivers is charged predetermined cost of insurance while drivers ranked higher and/or lower are charged on a relative basis . . .”) Interpretation: drivers are ranked with respect to insurance cost. These metrics are derived from the behavioral data, those with lower insurance cost means higher ranking, and vice versa;
determining a driving score based on a collected set of data, wherein determining the driving score comprises defining a quantitative scoring model based on driving behavior of each of the multiple driving candidates in various driving conditions and weighting factors according to a location of the rental vehicle (Memani, see at least par. [0055] “. . . Observed, calculated and/or derived information may include information relevant to the behavior and/or characteristics of the vehicle operator, the vehicle, the geography, the environment or combinations thereof, such as, for example: time of day; presence of accident; road construction; full or partial road closures; snowfall; rainfall; fog; health and fitness level; medical condition; drug or alcohol use; among others. Predetermined parameters and conditions may be grouped based on quantitative patterns, relationships and interrelationships such as, of example: vehicles driving within predetermined miles per hour groups; vehicles with predetermined cargo capacity groups; amount of driving and non driving time; total amount of driving; number of geographies visited; operators with predetermined amount of sleep deprivation; operators with predetermine fitness level groups; operators with predetermined amount of drug or alcohol in body groups; operators using predetermined amount of mobile phone while driving group; operators taking predetermined amount of rest/breaks groups; geographies with predetermined speed limit groups, geographies by distance from predetermined location groups (e.g. ocean, warehouse, school); type of terrain groups (e.g., long straight roads, meandering mountain roads); altitude from sea level group; time of day groups; amount of snowfall in predetermined period groups; among others. . . .” & par. [0072] “each containing some or all of the data recorded and/or derived from the data recorded by the data collection sub system 102 including date, time, vehicle speed, speed limit, zip code, direction, use of mobile phone”) Driving behavior such as driving speed and other factors such as weather condition, road construction;
generating an aggregate ranking of each of the multiple driving candidates based on the driving score (Memani, see at least par. [0061] “. . . Statistical and mathematical processes may be further used to develop predictive models, decision models and/or descriptive models. Analytical techniques used to provide grouping, classifications, ranking and rating to the operators, . . .”) Interpretation: the ranking is generated based on certain data.
Memani does not disclose the following; however, Hsu-Hoffman teaches:
A computer-implemented method for recommending a best driver, amongst a group of potential vehicle drivers, to get best vehicle rental and insurance costs, the method comprising: building a framework of a group of multiple driving candidates to select from to be a driver of a rental vehicle (Hsu-Hoffman, par. [0026]) Interpretation: a group of drivers are combined for analysis;
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of determining driving score based on subjective framework as taught by Hsu-Hoffman with the invention disclosed by Memani to help perform the risk based metrics for premium calculation (Hsu-Hoffman, Abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Memani in view of Hsu-Hoffman does not teach the following; however, Lam teaches:
and recommending a highest ranked candidate as the best driver to receive the best vehicle rental and insurance costs (Lam, see at least par. [0076] “. . . determining a highest ranked peak point to promote to a candidate point (see block 445) . . .”) Candidates with highest peak point correspond to peak candidate.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of recommending highest ranked candidate as taught by Lam with the invention disclosed by Memani in view of Hsu-Hoffman to help providing recommendation for best drivers (Lam, Abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claims 2, 9, 16 are grouped together. Memani in view of Hsu Hoffman in further view of Lam teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1. Hsu-Hoffman further teaches: further comprising: collecting a set of data for each of the multiple driving candidates, wherein the set of data comprises individualized characteristics related to driving safety and history; and defining a set of criteria for dynamically evaluating each of the multiple driving candidates, based on their respective individualized characteristics (Hsu-Hoffman, par. [0018]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of determining driving score based on subjective framework as taught by Hsu-Hoffman with the invention disclosed by Memani in view of Hsu-Hoffman in further view of Lam to help performing the risk based metrics for premium calculation (Hsu-Hoffman, Abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claims 3, 10, 17 are grouped together. Memani in view of Hsu-Hoffman in further view of Lam teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 2. Memani further teaches: wherein the set of criteria for dynamically evaluating each of the multiple driving candidates comprises at least one of the following: health data, medication data, driving history in various road and weather conditions, number of years of driving experience, type of car, past and current vehicle insurance rates, history of any vehicle-related accidents, and history of traffic violation tickets (Memani, see at least par. [0051] “. . . operator health and medical information, operator lifestyle, operator demographic information, among others. The set-up subsystem 100 also acquires user preferences at step 201, which may include auto/manual updates to system software, real-time versus batch data transmission . . .”.
Claims 4, 11, 18 are grouped together. Memani in view of Hsu-Hoffman in further view of Lam teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1. Hsu- Hoffman further teaches: further comprising: charging shared vehicle rental and insurance costs amongst the best driver and each of the other multiple driving candidates, according to a predefined payment agreement (Hsu-Hoffman, see at least par. [0109] “In another embodiment: the insurance policy is sold and priced in part based on where a customer falls within a three sigma distribution of risk units consumed by all insured per a typical policy period . . .”) Insurance policy corresponds to an agreement.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of charging shared vehicle as taught by Hsu-Hoffman with the invention disclosed by Memani in view of Hsu-Hoffman in further view of Lam to help performing the risk based metrics for premium calculation. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claims 5, 12, 19 are grouped together. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, Memani further teaches: further comprising: notifying insurer of the best driver to adjust and apply additional best rates and incentives (Memani, see at least par. [0064] “. . . when vehicle operators are found to qualify for motor vehicle insurance by an insurance company, vehicle operators that are ranked or rated highest pay a lower cost for motor vehicle insurance compared to vehicle operators that are ranked below them; average drivers is charged predetermined cost of insurance while drivers ranked higher and/or lower are charged on a relative basis . . .”) Interpretation: drivers are ranked with respect to insurance cost. These metrics are derived from the behavioral data, those with lower insurance cost means higher ranking, and vice versa;.
Claims 6, 13, 20 are grouped together. The computer-implemented method of claim 1. Memani further teaches: further comprising: pairing and connecting each of the multiple driving candidates sleep quality metrics, from one or more internet of things (IoT) devices to an insurance portal (par. [0054]); and generating a better daily rate for vehicle and insurance costs based on greater sleep quality metrics of the multiple driving candidates amongst each of the multiple driving candidates (Memani, see at least par. [0056] “. . . type of driving (e.g. high/low risk driving, transport hazardous material, amount of cellular phone use while driving, etc.); air pollution levels measured in geographies visited; diseases and infections present in geographies visited; level of physical activity; lifestyle (e.g. amount of sleep, amount of alcohol use, etc.); actuarial information relevant to health and medical insurance; life expectancy; mortality rates; among others. .
Claims 7 and 14 are grouped together. The computer-implemented method of claim 1. Memani further teaches: further comprising: defining a quantitative scoring model based on each of the multiple driving candidates driving behavior in traffic congestion (Memani, par. [0061]) The cited portion discloses the scoring model.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 PM.
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, Mike W. Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3693 /BRUCE I EBERSMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights