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
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the amendments filed on 6/27/2025.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 14, 18, 27 and 32 are currently amended.
Claims 6, 19, 20 and 31 are cancelled.
Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-18, 21-30 and 32-37 are pending and addressed 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 1-5, 7-18, 21-30 and 32-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-5, 7-18, 21-30 and 32-37 are directed to a method, a system, which is a process, machine, manufacturer or composition of matter and thus statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “…provide a driver with readings, videos, and validation questions that are specific to a jurisdictional in-classroom hour and content requirement needed to obtain a driver’s license; create and present an in-classroom training certificate to the driver upon achievement of the jurisdictional in-classroom hour and content requirement; send a verification code to a parent to verify their presence in a vehicle during a supervised parent training practice, and in response…to evaluate and score the driver’s driving in real time along a generated route; receive an input, wherein the input is a selection of a practice skill from a set of practice skills presented to the driver; in response to receiving the input, gather a set of geolocation data of the vehicle, and create route options for the selected practice skilled based on the set of geolocation data; perform an analysis of safe and unsafe roads along the route options for the selected practice skill; assign a score to each of the route options based upon their safety; and select the safest route to be the generated route; identify when the driver completes the jurisdiction’s hour requirement for supervised driving, and in response, create and present a parent practice certificate to the driver; generate an in-car route that satisfies the jurisdiction’s skill requirements for in-car driving, and in response, collect and score the driver’s driving in real time along the generated in-car route; identify when the driver completes the jurisdiction’s skill requirement for in-car driving, and in response, create and present an evaluation certificate to the driver; in response to the driver completing the jurisdiction’s driving exam and obtaining the jurisdiction’s driving license, calculate a proprietary teen driver insurance score based on the driver’s performance of the validation questions or based on the driving data collected; and provide a vehicle insurance quote based on the proprietary teen driver insurance score to the driver, the driver’s family, or the driver and the driver’s family”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance; provide a vehicle insurance quote to the driver and the driver’s family) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed system of a driver training application, a mobile computing device, a parent’s mobile device, a telematics tracking software, a GPS receiver and a display that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…provide… readings and validation questions; create and present… an in-classroom training certificate …; send…a verification code…; evaluate and score… the driver’s driving…; receive… an input; gather… a set of geolocation data; and create…route options…; perform… an analysis …; assign…a score; and select…the safest route…; display…the generated the generated routes…; identify… the driver; generate… an in-car route, collect and score the driver’s driving; display…the generated in-car route; and calculate…a teen driver score”, 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 particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the driver training application, the mobile computing device, the parent’s mobile device, the telematics tracking software, the GPS receiver and the display that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…provide… readings and validation questions; create and present… an in-classroom training certificate …; send…a verification code…; evaluate and score… the driver’s driving…; receive… an input; gather… a set of geolocation data; and create…route options…; perform… an analysis …; assign…a score; and select…the safest route…; display…the generated the generated routes…; identify… the driver; generate… an in-car route, collect and score the driver’s driving; display…the generated in-car route; and calculate…a teen driver score”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 14 and 27 recite limitations substantially similar to claim 1. Thus, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as above in claim 1. Thus, the claims are not eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, 16-18, 21-26, 28-30 and 32-37 are dependent on claims 1, 14 and 27. Therefore, claims 2-5, 7-13, 16-18, 21-26, 28-30 and 32-37 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1, 14 and 27. Claims 2-5, 7-13, 16-18, 21-26, 28-30 and 32-37 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the application software and the telematics tracking software included in the dependent claims 3-5, 7-13, 16-18, 22-26, 29, 30 and 32-37 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receive, record, store…the driver’s answer; re-provide… the readings, videos, and validation questions…(claims 3, 16 and 29); electronically transmit… the in-classroom training certificate or generate… the in- classroom training certificate into downloadable PDF format (claims 4 and 17); record, analyze, and determine… the driver’s driving history and the driver obtained the passing score (claims 5, 18 and 30); examines… rates of accidents, weather and road conditions (claims 7 and 32); electronically transmit… the parent practice certificate or generate… the parent practice certificate into downloadable PDF format (claims 8 and 21); provide…safe route detection (claims 9, 22 and 34); evaluate… the driver’s driving score, generate …a teen driver report; and directing… the driver to repeat the in-car route (claims 10, 23 and 35); electronically transmit… the evaluation certificate or generate… the evaluation certificate into downloadable PDF format (claims 11 and 24); present …a list of insurance companies, transferring… the proprietary teen driver insurance score, receive… a policy and a rate quote, and present… the policy and the rate quote to the driver (claims 12, 25 and 36); issues… a referral fee to an entity (claims 13, 26 and 37); and geolocate… the vehicle (claim 33), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, 16-18, 21-26, 28-30 and 32-37 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the application software and the telematics tracking software included in the dependent claims 3-5, 7-13, 16-18, 22-26, 29, 30 and 32-37 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receive, record, store…the driver’s answer; re-provide… the readings, videos, and validation questions…(claims 3, 16 and 29); electronically transmit… the in-classroom training certificate or generate… the in- classroom training certificate into downloadable PDF format (claims 4 and 17); record, analyze, and determine… the driver’s driving history and the driver obtained the passing score (claims 5, 18 and 30); examines… rates of accidents, weather and road conditions (claims 7 and 32); electronically transmit… the parent practice certificate or generate… the parent practice certificate into downloadable PDF format (claims 8 and 21); provide…safe route detection (claims 9, 22 and 34); evaluate… the driver’s driving score, generate …a teen driver report; and directing… the driver to repeat the in-car route (claims 10, 23 and 35); electronically transmit… the evaluation certificate or generate… the evaluation certificate into downloadable PDF format (claims 11 and 24); present …a list of insurance companies, transferring… the proprietary teen driver insurance score, receive… a policy and a rate quote, and present… the policy and the rate quote to the driver (claims 12, 25 and 36); issues… a referral fee to an entity (claims 13, 26 and 37); and geolocate… the vehicle (claim 33), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, 16-18, 21-26, 28-30 and 32-37 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Previous Claim Objection
The previous claim objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn in in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The updated rejections of claims 1-5, 7-18, 21-30 and 32-37 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Applicant argued that: “…amended claim 1 recites a practical application of any alleged abstract idea. Amended claims 14 and 27 recite similar limitations, and thus, are also practical applications of any alleged abstract idea for at least the same reasons provided above…” (Please see the remarks on pages 15-17).
Answer: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the office has explained above that claim 1 recites “…provide a driver with readings, videos, and validation questions that are specific to a jurisdictional in-classroom hour and content requirement needed to obtain a driver’s license; create and present an in-classroom training certificate to the driver upon achievement of the jurisdictional in-classroom hour and content requirement; send a verification code to a parent to verify their presence in a vehicle during a supervised parent training practice, and in response…to evaluate and score the driver’s driving in real time along a generated route; receive an input, wherein the input is a selection of a practice skill from a set of practice skills presented to the driver; in response to receiving the input, gather a set of geolocation data of the vehicle, and create route options for the selected practice skilled based on the set of geolocation data; perform an analysis of safe and unsafe roads along the route options for the selected practice skill; assign a score to each of the route options based upon their safety; and select the safest route to be the generated route; identify when the driver completes the jurisdiction’s hour requirement for supervised driving, and in response, create and present a parent practice certificate to the driver; generate an in-car route that satisfies the jurisdiction’s skill requirements for in-car driving, and in response, collect and score the driver’s driving in real time along the generated in-car route; identify when the driver completes the jurisdiction’s skill requirement for in-car driving, and in response, create and present an evaluation certificate to the driver; in response to the driver completing the jurisdiction’s driving exam and obtaining the jurisdiction’s driving license, calculate a proprietary teen driver insurance score based on the driver’s performance of the validation questions or based on the driving data collected; and provide a vehicle insurance quote based on the proprietary teen driver insurance score to the driver, the driver’s family, or the driver and the driver’s family”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance; provide a vehicle insurance quote to the driver and the driver’s family) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed system of a driver training application, a mobile computing device, a parent’s mobile device, a telematics tracking software, a GPS receiver and a display that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…provide… readings and validation questions; create and present… an in-classroom training certificate …; send…a verification code…; evaluate and score… the driver’s driving…; receive… an input; gather… a set of geolocation data; and create…route options…; perform… an analysis …; assign…a score; and select…the safest route…; display…the generated the generated routes…; identify… the driver; generate… an in-car route, collect and score the driver’s driving; display…the generated in-car route; and calculate…a teen driver score”, 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 particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Independent claims 14 and 27 recite limitations substantially similar to claim 1. Thus, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as above in claim 1. Thus, the claims are not eligible. Therefore, the amended claims 1, 14 and 27 do not recite a practical application of any alleged abstract idea. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
For the above reasons, it is believed that Appellant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the rejections should be sustained.
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 extension fee 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 Tien C. Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694