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 1/28/2026.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are currently amended.
Claims 2, 11 and 20 were cancelled.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-10 and 12-19 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the FINALITY of the previous Office Action has been WITHDRAWN pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/28/2026 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 1, 3-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-19 are directed to an apparatus, a method, a non-transitory computer readable medium 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 “…receive input data indicating driving characteristics during one or more trips by a user in real-time as the trips occur, the input data being based on sensor data; extract one or more features associated with each trip of the one or more trips upon receiving input data for the trip, wherein the one or more features are extracted and stored while the input data for the trip is received to reduce computational footprint; store the one or more features for a rolling period; and retrieve aggregated features comprising the one or more features in response to a request for generation of a user score, wherein the user score is generated on-demand by calculating the user score upon request for the user”. These recited limitations, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions (including business relations, i.e. processing one or more features associated with the trip data and generate the user score based on aggregate features) but for the recitation of generic computer component. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of fundamental economic principles or practices but for the recitation of generic computer component, 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 apparatus of a features database, a feature extraction system, one or more sensors, a score processing system and a feature extraction system that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receive …input data based on sensor data; extract… one or more features …as trips are ingested…in stream…; extracted and stored…the one or more features…; retrieve…aggregate features in response to a request for score generation; and the user scored is generated by calculating…the user score upon request”, 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 features database, the feature extraction system, the one or more sensors, the score processing system and the feature extraction system that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receive …input data based on sensor data; extract… one or more features …as trips are ingested…in stream…; extracted and stored…the one or more features…; retrieve…aggregate features in response to a request for score generation; and the user scored is generated by calculating…the user score upon request”, 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 10 and 19 recite limitations substantially similar to claim 1. Thus, the claims are rejected based on the same reasoning as above in claim 1. Thus, the claims are not eligible.
Dependent claims 3-9 and 12-18 are dependent on claims 1, 10 and 19. Therefore, claims 3-9 and 12-18 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1, 10 and 19. Claims 3-9 and 12-18 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 features database, the feature extraction system, the configuration database and the score processing system included in the dependent claims 3, 4, 6-8, 12, 13 and 15 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…extracted and stored… the one or more features (claims 3 and 12); determine… the one or more features to be extracted … (claims 4 and 13); retrieve and aggregate…the features associated with the multiple trips … (claims 6 and 15); generate… a document (claim 7); and determine… whether a user score generation criteria has been met…(claim 8), 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 3-9 and 12-18 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 features database, the feature extraction system, the configuration database and the score processing system included in the dependent claims 3, 4, 6-8, 12, 13 and 15 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…extracted and stored… the one or more features (claims 3 and 12); determine… the one or more features to be extracted … (claims 4 and 13); retrieve and aggregate…the features associated with the multiple trips … (claims 6 and 15); generate… a document (claim 7); and determine… whether a user score generation criteria has been met…(claim 8), 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 3-9 and 12-18 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The updated rejections of claims 1, 3-10 and 12-19 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant argued that: “…The Office Action's Abstract Idea Characterization Is Improperly Broad and Unsupported…The Office Action Failed to Properly Evaluate Integration Into a Practical Application… The Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea…” (Please see the remarks on pages 7-12, 20-21, 35-37 and 41-42).
Answer 1: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the office has explained above, claim 1 recites “…receive input data indicating driving characteristics during one or more trips by a user in real-time as the trips occur, the input data being based on sensor data; extract one or more features associated with each trip of the one or more trips upon receiving input data for the trip, wherein the one or more features are extracted and stored while the input data for the trip is received to reduce computational footprint; store the one or more features for a rolling period; and retrieve aggregated features comprising the one or more features in response to a request for generation of a user score, wherein the user score is generated on-demand by calculating the user score upon request for the user”. These recited limitations, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions (including business relations, i.e. processing trip data and generate the user score based on the aggregate features associated with the trip data) but for the recitation of generic computer component. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of fundamental economic principles or practices but for the recitation of generic computer component, 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 apparatus of a features database, a feature extraction system, one or more sensors, a score processing system and a feature extraction system that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receive …input data based on sensor data; extract… one or more features …as trips are ingested…in stream…; extracted and stored…the one or more features…; retrieve…aggregate features in response to a request for score generation; and the user scored is generated by calculating…the user score upon request”, 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.
In addition, the MPEP 2106.04(a) states that: “…Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One”. Thus, According to the MPEP 2106.04(a), Examiner (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) (…receive input data indicating driving characteristics during one or more trips by a user in real-time as the trips occur, the input data being based on sensor data; extract one or more features associated with each trip of the one or more trips upon receiving input data for the trip, wherein the one or more features are extracted and stored while the input data for the trip is received to reduce computational footprint; store the one or more features for a rolling period; and retrieve aggregated features comprising the one or more features in response to a request for generation of a user score, wherein the user score is generated on-demand by calculating the user score upon request for the user) in the Applicant’s claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) (…receive input data indicating driving characteristics during one or more trips by a user in real-time as the trips occur, the input data being based on sensor data; extract one or more features associated with each trip of the one or more trips upon receiving input data for the trip, wherein the one or more features are extracted and stored while the input data for the trip is received to reduce computational footprint; store the one or more features for a rolling period; and retrieve aggregated features comprising the one or more features in response to a request for generation of a user score, wherein the user score is generated on-demand by calculating the user score upon request for the user) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas of “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity: commercial or legal interactions (including business relations, i.e. processing trip data and generate the user score based on the aggregate features associated with the trip data). If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One”. Therefore, according to the MPEP 2106.04(a), it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One.
Furthermore, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (page 5) stated that: “…The term “certain” qualifies the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping as a reminder of several important points…The number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the subgroupings…” (Please see the remarks on pages 7-12, 20-21 and 41-42). Thus, the determination of the claim should be based on whether the activity itself (such as: receive input data indicating driving characteristics during one or more trips by a user in real-time as the trips occur, the input data being based on sensor data; extract one or more features associated with each trip of the one or more trips upon receiving input data for the trip, wherein the one or more features are extracted and stored while the input data for the trip is received to reduce computational footprint; store the one or more features for a rolling period; and retrieve aggregated features comprising the one or more features in response to a request for generation of a user score, wherein the user score is generated on-demand by calculating the user score upon request for the user) falls within one of the subgroupings. Therefore, claim 1 has been determined based on the activity itself (such as: receive input data indicating driving characteristics during one or more trips by a user in real-time as the trips occur, the input data being based on sensor data; extract one or more features associated with each trip of the one or more trips upon receiving input data for the trip, wherein the one or more features are extracted and stored while the input data for the trip is received to reduce computational footprint; store the one or more features for a rolling period; and retrieve aggregated features comprising the one or more features in response to a request for generation of a user score, wherein the user score is generated on-demand by calculating the user score upon request for the user) falls within one of the subgroupings of “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity: such as commercial or legal interactions (including business relations, i.e. processing trip data and generate the user score based on the aggregate features associated with the trip data).
Therefore, for at least one of the reasons above, the abstract idea characterization is properly and supported, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a Practical Application, and the claims are Directed to an abstract Idea…” (Please see the remarks on pages 7-12, 20-21, 35-37 and 41-42). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 2: Applicant argued that: “…The Claims Are Directed to Specific Technological Solutions, Not Abstract Ideas … The Claims Are Analogous to Patent-Eligible Subject Matter in Federal Circuit Precedent… Alice Step 2B: The Claims Recite Significantly More Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea… (Please see the remarks on pages 21-33, 38-40 and 42-46).
Answer 2: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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 features database, the feature extraction system, the one or more sensors, the score processing system and the feature extraction system that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receive …input data based on sensor data; extract… one or more features …as trips are ingested…in stream…; extracted and stored…the one or more features…; retrieve…aggregate features in response to a request for score generation; and the user scored is generated by calculating…the user score upon request”, 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.
In addition, the additional elements of the features database, the feature extraction system, the one or more sensors, the score processing system and the feature extraction system of the claim that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receive …input data based on sensor data; extract… one or more features …as trips are ingested…in stream…; extracted and stored…the one or more features…; retrieve…aggregate features in response to a request for score generation; and the user scored is generated by calculating…the user score upon request”, which the above functions amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, The Examiner fails to see in the Applicant’s claim the limitations that are directed to specific technological solutions, the ordered combination provides the inventive concept, and the claim recites significantly More Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea (Please see the remarks on pages 21-32).
Furthermore, merely automating the process of the user score generation from streaming data using a score processing system to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Customedia Techs. V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We have held that ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality.”) (citation omitted); Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commce’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Even assuming this collection of elements led to a more efficient way of controlling resource access, ‘our precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.’’’) (citation omitted); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (same).
Therefore, for at least one of the reasons above, the claims are not directed to specific Technological Solutions (Please see the remarks on pages 21-25), the claims are not analogous to Patent-Eligible Subject Matter in Federal Circuit Precedent (Please see the remarks on pages 25-28) and the claims do not recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea (Please see the remarks on pages 29-33, 38-40 and 42-46). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 3: Applicant argued that: “…No Evidence of Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity As discussed in detail in Part I, the Office Action provides no evidence that the claimed system architecture was well-understood, routine, or conventional. The Office Action cites no prior art, no technical publications, no standards documents, and takes no official notice. The conclusory characterizations of elements as "generic" are insufficient under Berkheimer…” (Please see the remarks on page 33).
Answer 3: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) (Advanced training module: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/training-materials-subject-matter-eligibility) on page 22 and page 37 clearly states that:
“Prong Two Excludes The “WURC” Consideration
As noted on the preceding slide, there is no evaluation of well-understood, routine, conventional (“WURC”) activity in Prong Two.
Examiners should give weight to all of the claimed additional elements in Prong Two, even if those elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity.
Because Step 2A excludes consideration of WURC, a claim that includes WURC elements may still integrate an exception into a practical application.
Do not evaluate WURC unless the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.”…
“…Eligibility At Step 2B
Revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
However, if an examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B
If such reevaluation indicates that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that an inventive concept is present and that the claim is thus eligible.
For example, when evaluating a claim reciting an abstract idea such as a mathematical equation and a series of data gathering steps that collect a necessary input for the equation, an examiner might consider the data gathering steps to be insignificant extra-solution activity in revised Step 2A, and therefore find that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. However, when the examiner reconsiders the data gathering steps in Step 2B, the examiner could determine that the combination of steps gather data in an unconventional way and, therefore, provide an “inventive concept,” rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B.”
Regarding the 2019 PEG Guidelines, the Office had not previously concluded under Step 2A that an additional element of the Applicant’s claim was insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the Applicant’s claims do not need to be reevaluated under WURC. Thus, Applicant’s claims are not applicable to be reevaluated under WURC. Thus, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 4: Applicant argued that: “…The Dependent Claims Add Further Specificity…” (Please see the remarks on pages 33-34).
Answer 4: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Dependent claims 3-9 and 12-18 are dependent on claims 1, 10 and 19. Therefore, claims 3-9 and 12-18 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1, 10 and 19. Claims 3-9 and 12-18 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 features database, the feature extraction system, the configuration database and the score processing system included in the dependent claims 3, 4, 6-8, 12, 13 and 15 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…extracted and stored… the one or more features (claims 3 and 12); determine… the one or more features to be extracted … (claims 4 and 13); retrieve and aggregate…the features associated with the multiple trips … (claims 6 and 15); generate… a document (claim 7); and determine… whether a user score generation criteria has been met…(claim 8), 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 3-9 and 12-18 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 features database, the feature extraction system, the configuration database and the score processing system included in the dependent claims 3, 4, 6-8, 12, 13 and 15 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…extracted and stored… the one or more features (claims 3 and 12); determine… the one or more features to be extracted … (claims 4 and 13); retrieve and aggregate…the features associated with the multiple trips … (claims 6 and 15); generate… a document (claim 7); and determine… whether a user score generation criteria has been met…(claim 8), 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 3-9 and 12-18 are not patent eligible. Thus, the dependent claims do not add further specificity (Please see the remarks on pages 33-34).
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