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 7/23/2025.
Claims 2, 5, 13, 16 and 21 are currently amended.
Claim 3-4, 6-12, 14, 15 and 17-20 were previously presented.
Claim 1 was cancelled.
Therefore, claims 2-21 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 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; identify an occurrence of monitoring associated with the first user; determine whether the occurrence of monitoring corresponds with a timestamp 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; store the at least one reward; and 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. determining reward based on the driving data and driving events) 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 second computing device and a rewards 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; identify… an occurrence of monitoring associated with the first user; determine… whether the occurrence of monitoring corresponds with a timestamp…; and determine… at least one reward based on the drive score and the occurrence of monitoring …; store… the reward, and transmit…the notification of the reward”, 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. 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 an accelerometer, the second computing device and the rewards 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; identify… an occurrence of monitoring associated with the first user; determine… whether the occurrence of monitoring corresponds with a timestamp…; and determine… at least one reward based on the drive score and the occurrence of monitoring …; store… the reward, and transmit…the notification of the 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 13 and 21 are rejected based on the reasoning applicable to claim 2. Thus, the claims are not patent-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. Claims 3-12 and 14-20 further recite the limitations that do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Previous claims rejections under 35 USC 112 (b), second paragraph
The previous claims rejections under 35 USC 112 (b), second paragraph of the claims 5 and 16 have been withdrawn in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
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 7/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant argued that: “…Applicant respectfully submits amended independent claim 2 recites an integration into a practical application. In particular, amended independent claim 2 recites an improvement to the technical field of driving analysis by receiving driving data from one or more sensors of a first computing device (e.g., at least one of a location sensor or an accelerometer), calculating a drive score, and identifying an occurrence of monitoring associated with the first user (e.g., from monitoring an access pattern to the driving data by a second computing device). The claimed elements of amended independent claim 2 recite specific steps to achieve a specific outcome of incentivizing safe driving…” (Please see the remarks on pages 8-10).
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 the claim of a network interface, one or more sensors of a first computing device, a location sensor or an accelerometer, a second computing device and a rewards 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; identify… an occurrence of monitoring associated with the first user; determine… whether the occurrence of monitoring corresponds with a timestamp…; and determine… at least one reward based on the drive score and the occurrence of monitoring …; store… the reward, and transmit…the notification of the reward”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, the claim performs the functions of nothing more than “receiving data, calculate the drive score, monitor the data of the pattern, identify the occurrence, determine the occurrence with a timestamp, determine the reward based on the determined occurrence, store and transmit the notification of the reward”. 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. Therefore, the amended independent claim 2 does not recite an integration into a practical application. Rather, the amended independent claim 2 recites an improvement on a data level and adding more details of how to determine the driving data in driving analysis. Thus, the amended independent claim 2 are improvements in business/financial solution of how to determine the reward based on the driving data and events for the incentivizing safe driving. In other words, more details of the 'abstract idea' is not going to be "significantly more" than the 'abstract idea' because even though, the specific combination of features may be a narrow abstract idea, it still is an abstract idea. 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".
Argument 2: Applicant argued that: “…Under Step 2B, the claimed elements of amended independent claim 2, when considered in combination, amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception of an abstract idea…” (Please see the remarks on page 10).
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 an accelerometer, the second computing device and the rewards 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; identify… an occurrence of monitoring associated with the first user; determine… whether the occurrence of monitoring corresponds with a timestamp…; and determine… at least one reward based on the drive score and the occurrence of monitoring …; store… the reward, and transmit…the notification of the reward”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Thus, the claim performs the functions of nothing more than “receiving data, calculate the drive score, monitor the data of the pattern, identify the occurrence, determine the occurrence with a timestamp, determine the reward based on the determined occurrence, store and transmit the notification of the reward”. Thus, 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. Thus, under Step 2B, the claimed elements of amended independent claim 2, when considered in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception of an abstract idea. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 3: Applicant argued that: “…Further, as evidence of the lack of prior art rejections, the claimed elements of amended independent claim 2 are not well-understood, routine, or conventional, particularly when taken in context of the claim as a whole, which provides another factor for reciting more than an abstract idea…” (Please see the remarks on page 10).
Answer 3: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Office also would like to point out to the Applicant that the "novelty" (as evidence of the lack of prior art rejections) in the abstract idea does not satisfy the second prong of Step 2A and Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo Test analysis. Please see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Furthermore, the 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188-89; see also Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that, "under the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility").
For the above reasons, it is believed that Applicant'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