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 RCE filed on 4/23/2026.
Claims 2-4, 13-15 and 21 are currently amended.
Claims 5-12 and 16-20 were previously presented.
Claim 1 was cancelled.
Therefore, claims 2-21 are pending and addressed below.
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the FINALITY of the previous Office Action has been WITHDRAWN pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/23/2026 has been entered.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2-21 are directed to a system, a method, a non-transitory computer-readable media which is a process, machine, manufacturer or composition of matter and thus statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “…receive driving data associated with a first user for a trip, the driving data including a plurality of driving events; calculate a drive score based on the driving data and at least one of the plurality of driving events including a hard braking event, a sharp turning event, or a speeding event; monitor an access pattern to the driving data by detecting a data access event accessing the driving data and extracting a data access timestamp associated with the data access event; identify an occurrence of monitoring associated with the first user, accessing the driving data based on the detected data access event; determine whether the occurrence of monitoring corresponds with a period of time associated with the trip by comparing the data access timestamp to a trip timestamp stored in a trip data record associated with the driving data collected during the trip, and determining that the data access timestamp corresponds with the period of time associated with the trip; determine at least one reward based on the drive score exceeding a threshold and the occurrence of monitoring corresponding with the timestamp the period of time; and store the at least one reward and the trip data record, wherein the trip data record includes the trip timestamp and the driving data collected during the trip, wherein the network interface is further configured to transmit at least one notification of the at least one reward”. These recited limitations, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities, business relations, i.e. rewarding good driving behavior when the user inquires about the driving behavior within a period of time associated with the trip) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions 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 system claimed of a network interface, one or more sensors of a first computing device, a location sensor or an accelerometer, a reward subsystem, a second computing device, an embedded analytic object, a data interface and a database that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receive…driving data for a trip…; calculate …a drive score …; monitor… an access pattern to the driving data…by detecting…a generated data access event; accessing…the driving data and extracting…a data access timestamp…; identify… an occurrence of monitoring associated with the first user…; determine …whether the occurrence of monitoring corresponds with a period of time …by comparing …the data access timestamp to a trip timestamp stored…, and determining… that the data access timestamp corresponds with the period of time…; and determine…at least one reward based on the drive score exceeding a threshold…; store …the at least one reward and the trip data record…, and transmit… at least one notification of the at least one reward”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 network interface, the one or more sensors of the first computing device, the location sensor or the accelerometer, the reward subsystem, the second computing device, the embedded analytic object, the data interface and the database that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receive…driving data for a trip…; calculate …a drive score …; monitor… an access pattern to the driving data…by detecting…a generated data access event; accessing…the driving data and extracting…a data access timestamp…; identify… an occurrence of monitoring associated with the first user…; determine …whether the occurrence of monitoring corresponds with a period of time …by comparing …the data access timestamp to a trip timestamp stored…, and determining… that the data access timestamp corresponds with the period of time…; and determine…at least one reward based on the drive score exceeding a threshold…; store …the at least one reward and the trip data record…, and transmit… at least one notification of the at least one reward”, 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. Therefore, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 13 and 21 recite limitations substantially similar to claim 2. Thus, the claims are rejected based on the same reasoning as above in claim 2. Thus, the claims are not eligible.
Dependent claims 3-12 and 14-20 are dependent on claims 2, 13 and 21. Therefore, claims 3-12 and 14-20 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 2, 13 and 21. Claims 3-12 and 14-20 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 database, the rewards subsystem and the installed management program on the user device included in the dependent claims 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18 and 19 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “track… rewards associated with an account” (claims 3 and 14); “accumulate …rewards …mapped …to a user group to yield a total reward value, the first user being part of the user group, and wherein the at least one notification indicates the total reward value” (claims 4 and 15); “assign …points based on the driving event in accordance with selection of a program indicating one or more rules for assigning points to driving events” (claim 6); “collected…the driving data” (claims 7 and 18); “determine… based on a pattern of impact of reward notifications on other users, an amount of time for notifying the first user, wherein the at least one notification is sent based on the amount of time” (claims 8 and 19); “determine …a drive score based on the driving data, and wherein the at least one reward is determined based whether the drive score meets at a threshold” (claim 9); “determine …a type of the first user, the at least one reward being determined based on the type of the first user” (claim 11); and “identify … the occurrence of monitoring associated with the first user based on the type of the first user being a minor” (claim 12), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using 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 3-12 and 14-20 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 database, the rewards subsystem and the installed management program on the user device included in the dependent claims 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18 and 19 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “track… rewards associated with an account” (claims 3 and 14); “accumulate …rewards …mapped …to a user group to yield a total reward value, the first user being part of the user group, and wherein the at least one notification indicates the total reward value” (claims 4 and 15); “assign …points based on the driving event in accordance with selection of a program indicating one or more rules for assigning points to driving events” (claim 6); “collected…the driving data” (claims 7 and 18); “determine… based on a pattern of impact of reward notifications on other users, an amount of time for notifying the first user, wherein the at least one notification is sent based on the amount of time” (claims 8 and 19); “determine …a drive score based on the driving data, and wherein the at least one reward is determined based whether the drive score meets at a threshold” (claim 9); “determine …a type of the first user, the at least one reward being determined based on the type of the first user” (claim 11); and “identify … the occurrence of monitoring associated with the first user based on the type of the first user being a minor” (claim 12), 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 3-12 and 14-20 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The updated rejections of claims 2-21 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant argued that: “…Applicant respectfully submits amended independent claim 2, as a whole, recites an integration into a practical application…” (Please see the remarks on pages 9-11).
Answer 1: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the office has explained above that the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the system claimed of claim 2 of a network interface, one or more sensors of a first computing device, a location sensor or an accelerometer, a reward subsystem, a second computing device, an embedded analytic object, a data interface and a database that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receive…driving data for a trip…; calculate …a drive score …; monitor… an access pattern to the driving data…by detecting…a generated data access event; accessing…the driving data and extracting…a data access timestamp…; identify… an occurrence of monitoring associated with the first user…; determine …whether the occurrence of monitoring corresponds with a period of time …by comparing …the data access timestamp to a trip timestamp stored…, and determining… that the data access timestamp corresponds with the period of time…; and determine…at least one reward based on the drive score exceeding a threshold…; store …the at least one reward and the trip data record…, and transmit… at least one notification of the at least one reward”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. Therefore, “amended independent claim 2, as a whole, does not recite an integration into a practical application”. Again, the amended independent claim 2 recites an improvement on a data level and adding more details of how to monitor the driving data and determining the trip data to reward good driving behavior and “helped some insurance companies to retain customers, attracting and retaining customers, and in particular low-cost customers, are still in demand”. This improvement is one of the improvements in business /financial solutions that Applicant’s invention tried to solve (please see the Applicant’s specification in paragraphs 2-8 and the remarks on pages 9-11).
Furthermore, please see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014), which stated that in "defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303". In other word, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014) are examples of where a narrow/specific abstract or novel abstract idea are still considered abstract ideas. Thus, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 2: Applicant argued that: “…Applicant respectfully submits amended independent claim 2 recites significantly more than an abstract idea under Step 2B …” (Please see the remarks on pages 11-12).
Answer 2: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amended independent claim 2 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 network interface, the one or more sensors of the first computing device, the location sensor or the accelerometer, the reward subsystem, the second computing device, the embedded analytic object, the data interface and the database that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receive…driving data for a trip…; calculate …a drive score …; monitor… an access pattern to the driving data…by detecting…a generated data access event; accessing…the driving data and extracting…a data access timestamp…; identify… an occurrence of monitoring associated with the first user…; determine …whether the occurrence of monitoring corresponds with a period of time …by comparing …the data access timestamp to a trip timestamp stored…, and determining… that the data access timestamp corresponds with the period of time…; and determine…at least one reward based on the drive score exceeding a threshold…; store …the at least one reward and the trip data record…, and transmit… at least one notification of the at least one reward”, 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. Therefore, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. 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
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
