DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 02 March 2026.
Claim(s) 1-20 are amended.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 are newly added.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
The claims have been amended to address the objection(s)/rejection(s) presented in the prior Office Action. Accordingly, Examiner withdraws the corresponding objection(s)/rejection(s).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §112
The claims have been amended to address the objection(s)/rejection(s) presented in the prior Office Action. Accordingly, Examiner withdraws the corresponding objection(s)/rejection(s). New Rejections are presented as a result of the entered amendments.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific technological architecture that automatically resourced computer resource usage and provides a particular technological solution. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. If the applicant asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' or is a 'particular machine' the examiner should look at whether the added elements provide significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I). The specification discloses the computer system as the following: “Dual telemetry is the combination of "vehicle telemetry" (odometer, GPS, speed, braking, acceleration, ignition status, and other data obtained directly from vehicle onboard computers or via devices such as OBD port GPS-enabled mileage trackers), supplemented with GPS-capable smartphone telemetry as needed, and "Trip telemetry" (driver commercial trip histories).” There is no further description of the computing devices, therefore Examiner must assume they are generic computing components.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible because they reduce resource usage by offloading data that does not need to be stored and analyzed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that applicant’s purported improvement (as explained above) comes from potential improvements in the judicial exception, and not from improvements to computers or technology as the recitation of computing components in the claimed invention amounts to no more than invoking computers merely as a tool. See at least MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). The recitation of generic computing components to perform an otherwise ineligible judicial exception does not confer patent eligibility.
Applicant argues that the claims massively reduces the amount of telemetry that needs to be stored and analyzed and programmatically discards a significant fraction of claims that would otherwise require intensive computational investigation, and decreases the number of accident data points that need to be synthesized and analyzed to determine fault, thereby reducing the overall substantial cost of telemetry storage and computing power needed for analysis and thus rendering the claim eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP clarifies how additional elements can impose meaningful limits on a recited judicial exception:
“Consideration of improvements is relevant to the eligibility analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the consideration applies equally whether it is a computer-implemented invention, an invention in the life sciences, or any other technology. See, e.g., Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 119 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the court noted that a claimed process for preserving hepatocytes could be eligible as an improvement to technology because the claim achieved a new and improved way for preserving hepatocyte cells for later use, even though the claim is based on the discovery of something natural. Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II))
Drawing attention to the emphasized section, an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. In the current case, regardless of whether or not applicant’s invention improves the recited judicial exception, improving a method, algorithm, or process of a judicial exception absent of any technological modification, would be an improvement to the judicial exception (e.g. via the improvement in the efficiency of the judicial exception), but does not improve computers or technology.
Applicant argues that the abstract idea is anchored by the sensors present in the vehicle. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “The courts often cite to Parker v. Flook as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)). In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula "in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons." 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 196. Processes for the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons were used in the petrochemical and oil-refining fields. Id. Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98. Instead, the additional element in Flook regarding the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons was not sufficient to make the claim eligible, because it was merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed. Further, the Supreme Court found that this limitation did not amount to an inventive concept. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98. The Court reasoned that to hold otherwise would "exalt[] form over substance", because a competent claim drafter could attach a similar type of limitation to almost any mathematical formula. 437 U.S. at 590, 198 USPQ at 197.” See MPEP 2106.05(h). The usage of various telemetry sensors does not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating insurance overlaps are performed. These elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §103
As discussed in the interview, the entered amendments overcome the prior art. Accordingly, Examiner withdraws the corresponding rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The independent claims recite “…automatically reduce resource usage by…”. The specification is silent as to general recitation of reduction in resource usage. Examiner could not find any closest recitation that matched this recitation. This recitation represents new matter.
Any remaining claims not expounded upon are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes the following term(s) defined in the specification. “The modules and elements of the present invention are implemented mechanically and with sensors, processors connectively associated with non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs that causes one or more processors or information processing apparatus to execute on one or more processes.” Examiner notes this definition renders the “module” language recited in the claims as NOT means-plus-function language.
Examiner notes the phrase “…to improve driver incentives to reduce miles not insured by any commercial platform” recited in Claim 13 represents an intended use of the assessing and optimizing and may be afforded no patentable weight.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a system and method for dual telemetry to reduce insurance costs and claims for vehicles driven fully or partially for commercial purposes. These are a machine and process which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 1 and 20:
Claims 1 and 20:
“…ingest and store vehicle telemetry data from one or more sources, wherein the vehicle is covered by insurance from at least two insurance carriers;”
“…determine an identity of a driver by at least one of the following: vehicle reservation histories; tracking proximity between vehicles and driver smartphones with GPS data; and biometric recognition…;”
“…ingest and store driver commercial platform credentials and historical data related to vehicular telemetry during a trip period;”
“…estimate miles driven during the trip period;”
“…use data from the vehicle telemetry module, the commercial trip history module, the estimating module and the driver determination module to …generate a validated data stream that identifies a first subset of the miles driven during the trip period as not being covered by the first insurance carrier;”
“…based on the validated data stream,… reduce resource usage by generating liability and physical damage insurance premiums corresponding to the miles identified as being covered by the first insurance carrier.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor”, “an insurance premium processor” and various modules nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Commercial or Legal Interactions. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Insurance. Insurance is described when collecting telemetry data and using said telemetry data to calculate and adjust insurance premiums. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following (or similar) additional elements:
Claim(s) 1 and 20:
“a vehicle telemetry module configured to automatically…”
“a driver determination module communicatively coupled to the vehicle telemetry module, configured to automatically… using sensors within the vehicle”
“a commercial trip history module communicatively coupled to the vehicle telemetry module, configured to automatically…”
“an estimating module communicatively coupled to the commercial trip history module, configured to automatically…”
“a processor configured to…automatically…”
“an insurance premium processing module, communicatively coupled to the processor, configured to,…automatically”
The computer components (processors, modules and automation) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic processors, generic modules and generic automation) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The use of telemetry sensors is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technology) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
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 independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner:
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The independent claims recite no additional elements that were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity.
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 2-19 and 21-22 recite limitations that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iqbal et al. (US 10,817,950 B1) as the closest prior art of record discloses various vehicle sensors that collect and store data from a vehicle associated with an insurance application. Iqbal discloses biometric authentication and classifying trip data including driver credentials, miles driven, and type of trip associated with an insurance provider.
Bischoff et al. (US 10,946,862 B1) discloses determining a rate of charge based on use of the vehicle for personal use, ride shares, or vehicle shares (i.e. commercial platform data) and determining which policy applies based on the determined use.
Allen et al. (US 2019/0019133 A1) discloses ranking driver profitability based on revenue, safety costs (i.e. insurance costs) and miles driven and setting vehicle rates (i.e. renting a vehicle for a ride service) based on said profitability and using a predetermined threshold corresponding to said ranking to determine opportunities.
Clarke et al. (WO 2011155972 A1) discloses addressing changes in insurance information over consecutive periods.
Satrape et al. (“Your Fleet, Risk, Controls, and Insurance: It's All Connected”) discloses fleet insurance management.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3691
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691