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 6/24/2026.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are currently amended.
Claims 2, 11 and 20 are cancelled.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-10 and 12-19 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, 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 the limitations of “…maintain, on a per-user basis, extracted features indexed by trip time within a temporal window defined by a rolling period, 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 timestamped sensor measurements indicating driving characteristics including at least one of speed, acceleration, braking, or heading data; extract one or more features associated with each of the one or more trips from the input data for that trip in a streaming manner upon receipt of the input data for each trip, to reduce computational footprint; create a feature record for each of the one or more trips upon extraction of the one or more features for that trip, wherein the feature record for each trip is created prior to extraction of features for a subsequent trip; and store the one or more features as time-keyed feature entries in a per-user rolling window as the input data for each of the one or more trips is received; and receive a request for generation of a user score for the user; retrieve aggregate features comprising the one or more features in response to the request; and maintains no pre-computed user scores between requests and wherein the user score is generated based on the aggregate features without preprocessing the input data”. 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 and a score processing system that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…maintain…extracted features indexed by trip time…, wherein features …are not retained…; receive… input data…; extract …one or more features…from the input data for that trip in a streaming manner…to reduce computational footprint; create …a feature record for each of the one or more trips …, wherein the feature record for each trip is created prior to extraction of features for a subsequent trip; store… the one or more features…; receive… a request for generation of a user score…; retrieve…aggregate features; maintains …no pre-computed user scores…and initiates… operation only upon receipt of the request, and wherein the user score is generated… based on the aggregate features without preprocessing… the input data”, 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 features database, the feature extraction system, the one or more sensors and the score processing system that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…maintain…extracted features indexed by trip time…, wherein features …are not retained…; receive… input data…; extract …one or more features…from the input data for that trip in a streaming manner …to reduce computational footprint; create …a feature record for each of the one or more trips …, wherein the feature record for each trip is created prior to extraction of features for a subsequent trip; store… the one or more features…; receive… a request for generation of a user score…; retrieve…aggregate features; maintains …no pre-computed user scores…and initiates… operation only upon receipt of the request, and wherein the user score is generated… based on the aggregate features without preprocessing… the input data”, 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 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 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant argued that: “…A. Error 1: The Abstract Idea Characterization Is Untethered from Specific Claim Language in Violation of MPEP § 2106.04(a)… SECTION 2: ALICE STEP 2A PRONG ONE: THE CLAIMS ARE DIRECTED TO A SPECIFIC COMPUTER SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE, NOT TO AN ABSTRACT IDEA… C. The Claims Are Not Directed to Commercial or Legal Interactions…” (Please see the remarks on pages 7-9 and 13-15).
Answer 1: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the office has explained above, the amendments of claim 1 recites “…maintain, on a per-user basis, extracted features indexed by trip time within a temporal window defined by a rolling period, 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 timestamped sensor measurements indicating driving characteristics including at least one of speed, acceleration, braking, or heading data; extract one or more features associated with each of the one or more trips from the input data for that trip in a streaming manner upon receipt of the input data for each trip, to reduce computational footprint; create a feature record for each of the one or more trips upon extraction of the one or more features for that trip, wherein the feature record for each trip is created prior to extraction of features for a subsequent trip; and store the one or more features as time-keyed feature entries in a per-user rolling window as the input data for each of the one or more trips is received; and receive a request for generation of a user score for the user; retrieve aggregate features comprising the one or more features in response to the request; and maintains no pre-computed user scores between requests and wherein the user score is generated based on the aggregate features without preprocessing the input data”. 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.
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) (…maintain, on a per-user basis, extracted features indexed by trip time within a temporal window defined by a rolling period, 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 timestamped sensor measurements indicating driving characteristics including at least one of speed, acceleration, braking, or heading data; extract one or more features associated with each of the one or more trips from the input data for that trip in a streaming manner upon receipt of the input data for each trip, to reduce computational footprint; create a feature record for each of the one or more trips upon extraction of the one or more features for that trip, wherein the feature record for each trip is created prior to extraction of features for a subsequent trip; and store the one or more features as time-keyed feature entries in a per-user rolling window as the input data for each of the one or more trips is received; and receive a request for generation of a user score for the user; retrieve aggregate features comprising the one or more features in response to the request; and maintains no pre-computed user scores between requests and wherein the user score is generated based on the aggregate features without preprocessing the input data) in the Applicant’s claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) (…maintain, on a per-user basis, extracted features indexed by trip time within a temporal window defined by a rolling period, 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 timestamped sensor measurements indicating driving characteristics including at least one of speed, acceleration, braking, or heading data; extract one or more features associated with each of the one or more trips from the input data for that trip in a streaming manner upon receipt of the input data for each trip, to reduce computational footprint; create a feature record for each of the one or more trips upon extraction of the one or more features for that trip, wherein the feature record for each trip is created prior to extraction of features for a subsequent trip; and store the one or more features as time-keyed feature entries in a per-user rolling window as the input data for each of the one or more trips is received; and receive a request for generation of a user score for the user; retrieve aggregate features comprising the one or more features in response to the request; and maintains no pre-computed user scores between requests and wherein the user score is generated based on the aggregate features without preprocessing the input data) 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. Thus, the Abstract Idea Characterization is tied, determined from Specific Claim Language of MPEP § 2106.04(a) and it’s not in Violation of MPEP § 2106.04(a)…” (Please see the remarks on pages 7-9 and 13-15).
Furthermore, the Office Action did not maintain the prior rejection in view of Applicant's prior arguments. The Office Action rejected the claims and responded to Applicant’s arguments based on Applicant’s claims amendments, arguments and according to the MPEP 2106.04(a). Thus, each answer do not “contain legal error” (Please see the remarks on page 7). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 2: Applicant argued that: “…B. Error 2: The Prong Two Analysis Applies the Wrong Legal Standard by Importing Step 2B Conventionality Analysis into Step 2A Prong Two…” (Please see the remarks on pages 9-10).
Answer 2: 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 claimed apparatus of a features database, a feature extraction system, one or more sensors and a score processing system that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…“…maintain…extracted features indexed by trip time…, wherein features …are not retained…; receive… input data…; extract …one or more features…from the input data for that trip in a streaming manner…to reduce computational footprint; create …a feature record for each of the one or more trips …, wherein the feature record for each trip is created prior to extraction of features for a subsequent trip; store… the one or more features…; receive… a request for generation of a user score…; retrieve…aggregate features; maintains …no pre-computed user scores…and initiates… operation only upon receipt of the request, and wherein the user score is generated… based on the aggregate features without preprocessing… the input data”,, 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, for at least one of the reasons above, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Furthermore, 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 14 clearly states that:
“Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
If the recited exception is integrated into a practical application, then the claim is eligible. This concludes the eligibility analysis.
If the exception is not integrated into a practical application, then the claim is “directed to” the exception. Go to Step 2B for further analysis”.
Thus, regarding the 2019 PEG Guidelines, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application, then the claim is “directed to” the exception. Go to Step 2B for further analysis”. Therefore, “The Prong Two Analysis do not Applies the Wrong Legal Standard by Importing Step 2B Conventionality Analysis into Step 2A Prong Two…”. The Office Action evaluated and determined that the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception, and the Office Action Go to Step 2B for further analysis (Please see the remarks on pages 9-10). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 3: Applicant argued that: “…C. Error 3: The Answer to the Berkheimer Argument Is Non-Responsive and the Step 2B Conventionality Conclusions Remain Unsupported by Evidence … Under Berkheimer, such conclusions require evidentiary support. The Office Action cites no prior art references. It cites no technical publications…It has not explained why this evidence is insufficient. It has not provided countervailing evidence that the specific architecture of streaming extraction, per-user time- keyed storage within a temporal window, and request-exclusive score generation was in fact conventional despite the specification's statements The Berkheimer evidentiary deficiency is not cured by Answer 3. The Step 2B conventionality conclusions remain unsupported and the rejection cannot be sustained at Step 2B on this ground…” (Please see the remarks on pages 10-11 and 18-19).
Answer 3: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the Office has explained above that 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 and the score processing system that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…maintain…extracted features indexed by trip time…, wherein features …are not retained…; receive… input data…; extract …one or more features…from the input data for that trip in a streaming manner…to reduce computational footprint; create …a feature record for each of the one or more trips …, wherein the feature record for each trip is created prior to extraction of features for a subsequent trip; store… the one or more features…; receive… a request for generation of a user score…; retrieve…aggregate features; maintains …no pre-computed user scores…and initiates… operation only upon receipt of the request, and wherein the user score is generated… based on the aggregate features without preprocessing… the input data”, 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.
Furthermore, 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.
Therefore, for at least one of the reasons above, the Berkheimer Argument is Responsive and the Step 2B Conventionality Conclusions Remain supported by Evidence (please see the 2019 PEG Guidelines above the remarks on pages 10-11). Thus, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Furthermore, The Office also would like to point out to the Applicant that the "novelty" (The Office Action cites no prior art references) in the abstract idea does not satisfy the second prong of Step 2A and Step 2B of the Alice's analysis. Please see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
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" 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").
Argument 4: Applicant argued that: “…D. Error 4: No Ordered Combination Analysis Was Performed at Step 2B…”(Please see the remarks on pages 11-12 and 18-19).
Answer 4: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Based on the amendments of the claim, the Office has explained above that 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 and the score processing system that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…maintain…extracted features indexed by trip time…, wherein features …are not retained…; receive… input data…; extract …one or more features…from the input data for that trip in a streaming manner…to reduce computational footprint; create …a feature record for each of the one or more trips …, wherein the feature record for each trip is created prior to extraction of features for a subsequent trip; store… the one or more features…; receive… a request for generation of a user score…; retrieve…aggregate features; maintains …no pre-computed user scores…and initiates… operation only upon receipt of the request, and wherein the user score is generated… based on the aggregate features without preprocessing… the input data”,, 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.
Therefore, Ordered Combination Analysis Was Performed at Step 2B…”(Please see the remarks on pages 11-12). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 5: Applicant argued that: “…E. Error 5: The Cases Cited in Answer 2 Are Factually Inapplicable… The applicable precedent is Enfish, not Customedia. The Federal Circuit in Enfish distinguished between efficiency inherent with applying an abstract idea on a computer, which is insufficient, and improvement in the way the computer itself functions through a specific architectural arrangement, which is sufficient. 822 F.3d at 1336. The instant claims fall in the latter category… B. The Claims Specify How Efficient Score Generation Is Achieved Through Specific Architectural Means…” (Please see the remarks on pages 11-14 and 20-21).
Answer 5: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In this Office action, the Office did not cite Customedia Techs. V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2020). However, in last Non-final rejection dated 2/24/2026, the Office explained that in Applicant’s claim merely automating the process of the user score generation from streaming data using a score processing system to try to make the process of “score generation” 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). Thus, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency (Efficient Score Generation Is Achieved in Applicant’s claim) 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 (Efficient Score Generation Is Achieved in Applicant’s claim) 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).
Argument 6: Applicant argued that: “…SECTION 3: ALICE STEP 2A PRONG TWO: THE CLAIMS INTEGRATE ANY ALLEGED EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION…” (Please see the remarks on pages 15-18).
Answer 6: 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 claimed apparatus of a features database, a feature extraction system, one or more sensors and a score processing system that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…maintain…extracted features indexed by trip time…, wherein features …are not retained…; receive… input data…; extract …one or more features…from the input data for that trip in a streaming manner…to reduce computational footprint; create …a feature record for each of the one or more trips …, wherein the feature record for each trip is created prior to extraction of features for a subsequent trip; store… the one or more features…; receive… a request for generation of a user score…; retrieve…aggregate features; maintains …no pre-computed user scores…and initiates… operation only upon receipt of the request, and wherein the user score is generated… based on the aggregate features without preprocessing… the input data”, which the claim performs the functions that amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Thus, these functions do not “Improve the Functioning of a Computer System, do not Apply Any Alleged Exception With a Particular Machine, or do not Effect Transformations of Data Through Specific Staged Processing” (Please see the remarks on pages 15-18). Thus, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 7: Applicant argued that: “…SECTION 4: ALICE STEP 2B: THE CLAIMS RECITE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THROUGH A NON-CONVENTIONAL ORDERED COMBINATION … (Please see the remarks on pages 18-20).
Answer 7: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the Office has explained above that 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 and the score processing system that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…maintain…extracted features indexed by trip time…, wherein features …are not retained…; receive… input data…; extract …one or more features…from the input data for that trip in a streaming manner…to reduce computational footprint; create …a feature record for each of the one or more trips …, wherein the feature record for each trip is created prior to extraction of features for a subsequent trip; store… the one or more features…; receive… a request for generation of a user score…; retrieve…aggregate features; maintains …no pre-computed user scores…and initiates… operation only upon receipt of the request, and wherein the user score is generated… based on the aggregate features without preprocessing… the input data”, 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. Rather, these functions are improvements in business/financial solution in the process of the user score generation so that “the on-demand scoring technique described herein may facilitate a score to be calculated quickly (e.g., within 250 ms)”, “saving computing resource”, and “reduce the [computational] costs of maintaining and deriving scores which may be infrequently accessed”. This is also one of the business/financial solutions that Applicant’s invention tried to solve (please see the Applicant’s specification paragraphs 15-17). Therefore, there are no technical solutions, improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment in the Applicant’s claims.
Furthermore, in Bascom, the court held that the inventive concept consisted of the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user that allow web access to each end user while maintain the security and flexibility to the filter at the client computer (improvement in computer technology). However, the Applicant’s claims to do not perform any such filtering action (or its equivalent) that is location specific and user specific. Thus, Applicant’s claims are not analogous to Bascom (Please see the remarks on pages 18-20). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 8: Applicant argued that: “…C. The Dependent Claims Further Demonstrate the Non-Conventional Character of the Architecture … (Please see the remarks on page 20).
Answer 8: 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.
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
Prosecution Insights