DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for reconsideration of application 18/130,104 (04/03/23) filed on 04/15/26.
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 8 - 11, 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 8 - 11, 13 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 8, is/are directed to a manufacture (i.e., one or more non-transitory computer-readable media).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Mathematical Concepts
The claims recite a mathematical formula or calculation (e.g., “a current risk unit consumption rate for the vehicle based on the one or more driving behavior characteristics and the environmental conditions”; “recalculates the current risk unit consumption rate based on the updated driving behavior characteristic data”). Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention involves receiving a premium for a usage-based insurance policy, the premium including an amount of funds stored in a user account associated with one of a user or a vehicle; receiving insurance information including a first cost per day and a first cost per mile for the usage-based insurance policy; iteratively: receiving driving data that indicates a start time, an end time, and a distance associated with a particular driving trip, and one or more driving behavior characteristics of the vehicle during the particular driving trip; receiving environmental condition data that indicates environmental conditions in which the vehicle operated during the particular driving trip;
determining, based on the one or more driving behavior characteristics and environmental conditions, one or more of a cost per day, and a cost per mile associated with the particular driving trip; determining, in real-time during the particular driving trip, a current risk unit consumption rate for the vehicle based on the one or more driving behavior characteristics and the environmental conditions; providing, to a user of the vehicle, real-time feedback indicating the current risk unit consumption rate and one or more suggested modifications to reduce the risk unit consumption rate, continuously receiving updated driving behavior characteristic data during the particular driving trip, recalculating the current risk unit consumption rate based on the updated driving behavior characteristic data, and updating the real-time feedback provided to reflect the recalculated current risk unit consumption rate, such that changes in a driving behavior of the user during the particular driving trip result in a corresponding real-time change in the current risk unit consumption rate indicated; determining a cost of the particular driving trip based on a duration of the particular driving trip, the distance of the particular driving trip, and the determined cost per day and the determined cost per mile;
reducing the amount of funds associated with the premium and stored in the user account by the cost of the particular driving trip and storing a balance of remaining funds in the user account, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (usage-based insurance policy); commercial or legal interactions (usage-based insurance policy); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (receive; determine; provide, continuously receives, recalculates, updates, reduce).
The mere nominal recitation of technology (e.g., “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”; “processor”) does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to receiving a premium for a usage-based insurance policy, the premium including an amount of funds stored in a user account associated with one of a user or a vehicle; receiving insurance information including a first cost per day and a first cost per mile for the usage-based insurance policy; iteratively: receiving driving data that indicates a start time, an end time, and a distance associated with a particular driving trip, and one or more driving behavior characteristics of the vehicle during the particular driving trip; receiving environmental condition data that indicates environmental conditions in which the vehicle operated during the particular driving trip; determining, based on the one or more driving behavior characteristics and environmental conditions, one or more of a cost per day, and a cost per mile associated with the particular driving trip; determining, in real-time during the particular driving trip, a current risk unit consumption rate for the vehicle based on the one or more driving behavior characteristics and the environmental conditions; providing, to a user of the vehicle, real-time feedback indicating the current risk unit consumption rate and one or more suggested modifications to reduce the risk unit consumption rate, continuously receiving updated driving behavior characteristic data during the particular driving trip, recalculating the current risk unit consumption rate based on the updated driving behavior characteristic data, and updating the real-time feedback provided to reflect the recalculated current risk unit consumption rate, such that changes in a driving behavior of the user during the particular driving trip result in a corresponding real-time change in the current risk unit consumption rate indicated; determining a cost of the particular driving trip based on a duration of the particular driving trip, the distance of the particular driving trip, and the determined cost per day and the determined cost per mile; reducing the amount of funds associated with the premium and stored in the user account by the cost of the particular driving trip and storing a balance of remaining funds in the user account.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. Although the claim refers to “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” and “a processor”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the user manually receiving a premium for a usage-based insurance policy, the premium including an amount of funds stored in a user account associated with one of a user or a vehicle; receiving insurance information including a first cost per day and a first cost per mile for the usage-based insurance policy; iteratively: receiving driving data that indicates a start time, an end time, and a distance associated with a particular driving trip, and one or more driving behavior characteristics of the vehicle during the particular driving trip; receiving environmental condition data that indicates environmental conditions in which the vehicle operated during the particular driving trip; determining, based on the one or more driving behavior characteristics and environmental conditions, one or more of a cost per day, and a cost per mile associated with the particular driving trip; determining, in real-time during the particular driving trip, a current risk unit consumption rate for the vehicle based on the one or more driving behavior characteristics and the environmental conditions; providing, to a user of the vehicle, real-time feedback indicating the current risk unit consumption rate and one or more suggested modifications to reduce the risk unit consumption rate, continuously receiving updated driving behavior characteristic data during the particular driving trip, recalculating the current risk unit consumption rate based on the updated driving behavior characteristic data, and updating the real-time feedback provided to reflect the recalculated current risk unit consumption rate, such that changes in a driving behavior of the user during the particular driving trip result in a corresponding real-time change in the current risk unit consumption rate indicated; determining a cost of the particular driving trip based on a duration of the particular driving trip, the distance of the particular driving trip, and the determined cost per day and the determined cost per mile; reducing the amount of funds associated with the premium and stored in the user account by the cost of the particular driving trip and storing a balance of remaining funds in the user account. NOTE: (a) The claim is exclusively from the perspective of an “insurance system server”. (b) Although an “insurance system database” is referenced in the claim, the “insurance system database” merely interacts with the claimed “insurance system server” and does not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention. (c) Although a “vehicle-based data source associated with the vehicle” is referenced in the claim, the “vehicle-based data source associated with the vehicle” merely interacts with the claimed “insurance system server” and does not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention. (d) Although a “user interface” is referenced in the claim, the “user interface” merely interacts with the claimed “insurance system server” and does not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention.
The mere nominal recitation of technology (e.g., “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”; “processor”) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This/these limitation(s) recite a mental process. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” performing each of the positively recited steps or acts. The claim also recites the combination of additional elements of the insurance information being received “from an insurance system database”. The claim also recites the combination of additional elements of the driving data being received “vehicle-based data source associated with the vehicle”. The claim also recites the combination of additional elements of the real-time feedback being provided “via a user interface and to a user of the vehicle”. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, “provide”, “continuously receives”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determine”, “recalculates”, “updates”, “reduce”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering usage-based insurance policy information), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The language is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 04/03/23 does not provide any indication there is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components, see at least para. [0027] [0036]. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Duddle, US Pub. No. 2011/0106370; Husnjak S, Peraković D, Forenbacher I, Mumdziev M. Telematics system in usage based motor insurance. Procedia Engineering. 2015 Jan 1;100:816-25 (hereinafter Husniak); Barber, US Pub. 2014/0278574; Bowne, US Pub. No. 2013/0006674; Foladare, US Pub. No. 2012/0010906; Foladare, US Pub. No. 2012/0004933; and Collopy, US Pub. No. 2010/0131300 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, “provide”, “continuously receives”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determine”, “recalculates”, “updates”, “reduce”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. See Duddle, at least [0034] [0106] [0107] [0113] [0117] [0143] [0183]. See Husniak, at least pgs. 816 - 818 and 820 - 824. See Barber, at least [0045]. See Bowne, at least [0091] [0116]. See Foladare (‘906), at least [0016] [0020]. See Foladare (‘933), at least [0017] [0020]. See Collopy, at least [0030] [0047]. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, “provide”, “continuously receives”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determine”, “recalculates”, “updates”, “reduce”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 9 - 11, 13 and 21 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Response to Arguments
Objections
Withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments and/ or amendments.
101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1)Applicant argues the claim(s) are not directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
I.Mathematical Concepts
The claimed invention is directed to mathematical concepts.
The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The claimed invention encompasses mathematical concepts because it involves organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (e.g., “a current risk unit consumption rate for the vehicle based on the one or more driving behavior characteristics and the environmental conditions”; “recalculates the current risk unit consumption rate based on the updated driving behavior characteristic data”).
This interpretation is consistent with the prosecution history of the instant application.
For example, para. [0069] of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 04/15/26 states:
[0069] In examples in which the consumption rate is determined based on traditional policy factors (either in combination with sensor data-focused factors or alone) the traditional policy factors, such as driving record, credit information, driving experience, vehicle features and/or specifications, coverages, deductibles, policy limits, etc. may be obtained from, for example, policy module 208.In some examples, the risk unit consumption rate may be determined or calculated for a particular trip. Additionally or alternatively, the consumption rate may be calculated or determined in real-time or near real-time, such that the rate may change as the user's driving behavior changes, as the type of road changes, as the environmental conditions change, or the like. Thus, for example, if a user is driving at speed higher than the speed limit and it is raining, the consumption rate may be higher than if the user is driving at the speed limit and/or there is no precipitation. This is merely one example of how consumption rate may change based on received sensor data and should not be viewed as limiting the disclosure to only this example. Rather, various other changes in received sensor data may be used to modify or alter the risk unit consumption rate for the user.
For example, pg. 18 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 04/15/26 states:
It is a description of a specific technical system performing specific computational operations on specific data inputs to produce specific technical outputs including a dynamically updated user interface display.
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I).
II.Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Fundamental economic principles or practices relate to the economy and commerce. The claimed invention encompasses fundamental economic principles or practices as it relates to insurance (e.g., usage-based insurance policy).
This interpretation is consistent with the prosecution history of the instant application.
For example, para. [0002] of applicant’s specification as filed 04/03/23 states:
[0002] Various aspects of the disclosure relate to usage-based insurance systems for determining and implementing usage-based insurance policies. More specifically, aspects of the disclosure relate to determining cost per day and cost per mile based on received driving data.
See at least claims 8, 9, 10 and 21 as filed 04/15/26.
The claimed invention encompasses commercial or legal interactions. The claimed invention relates to insurance (e.g., usage-based insurance policy). Insurance, in the instant scenario, pertains to agreements in the form of “contracts”, “legal obligations”, and “business relations”.
The claimed invention encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., receive; determine; provide, continuously receives, recalculates, updates, reduce).
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
With respect to alleged error argument 4 (i.e., The office action conflated the field of use with the nature of the claimed process.), the Examiner disagrees.
As noted above, the prosecution history makes clear that Applicant’s claimed invention relates to insurance (e.g., See at least para. [0002] of Applicant’s specification as filed 04/03/23. See at least claims 8, 9, 10 and 21 as filed 04/15/26). For example, Applicant’s claimed invention involves gathering information including “a premium for a usage-based insurance policy” and “insurance information”, determining a cost of a particular driving trip, and reducing an amount of funds associated with the premium by the cost of the particular driving trip. See at least independent claim 8 as filed 04/15/26
With respect to Applicant’s suggestion that Applicant’s claims have not been examined “as a whole” or that the claimed invention “is directed to an improvement in computer functionality or technology”, the Examiner disagrees. The 2(A), Prong 1 analysis focused on the aspects of the claimed invention directed to the abstract idea. The additional elements and consideration regarding whether there were limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application (i.e., Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.) were discussed in the 2(A), Prong 2 analysis.
NOTE: It is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., (a) “sensor data”, “vehicle-based sensor source” on pg. 13 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/26); (b) “continuous real-time sensor data ingestion”, “improves telematics-based insurance computing” on pg. 14 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/26); (c) “vehicle sensor data”, “real-time sensor-driven feedback system integrated with an iterative account management architecture”, “improvement to telematics-based computing technology” on pg. 16 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/26); and (d) “sensor-driven”, “specific combination of telematics sensor technology” on pg. 19 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/26)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). NOTE: The invention as claimed never mentions “sensor(s)” or “telematics” and neither is required of the claimed invention. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
III.Mental Processes
The claimed invention is directed to mental processes. The claimed invention encompasses observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions (e.g., “determine, based on the one or more driving behavior characteristics and environmental conditions, one or more of a cost per day, and a cost per mile associated with the particular driving trip; determine, in real-time during the particular driving trip, a current risk unit consumption rate for the vehicle based on the one or more driving behavior characteristics and the environmental conditions; provide, ….. to a user of the vehicle, real-time feedback indicating the current risk unit consumption rate and one or more suggested modifications to reduce the risk unit consumption rate, ….. continuously receives updated driving behavior characteristic data ….. during the particular driving trip, recalculates the current risk unit consumption rate based on the updated driving behavior characteristic data, and updates the real-time feedback provided ….. to reflect the recalculated current risk unit consumption rate, such that changes in a driving behavior of the user during the particular driving trip result in a corresponding real-time change in the current risk unit consumption rate indicated …..; determine a cost of the particular driving trip based on a duration of the particular driving trip, the distance of the particular driving trip, and the determined cost per day and the determined cost per mile; reduce the amount of funds associated with the premium and stored in the user account by the cost of the particular driving trip and storing a balance of remaining funds in the user account.”.) which are examples of mental processes.
Contrary to applicant’s arguments, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid. Similarly, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Although claims 8 – 11, 13 and 21 recite performance on a machine (e.g., “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” and “a processor” in one or more non-transitory computer-readable media claims 8 – 11, 13 and 21), nothing forecloses applicant’s claimed invention from being performed by a human and thus applicant’s claimed invention is still directed to a mental process.
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
With respect to alleged error argument 1 (i.e., The mental processes characterization is facially inapplicable.), the Examiner disagrees.
Examiner disagrees with the suggestion that the claimed invention “cannot, as a practical matter, be performed in the human mind (because they require specific hardware, specific data sources, or specific computational operations at a speed or scale beyond human cognitive capacity) the mental processes characterization does not apply”. See pg. 13 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/26). In the instant case, Applicant has not claimed “specific hardware” or specific data sources”, but instead the operations of a general purpose computer (i.e., “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”, “processor” of a “insurance system server”. See at least independent claim 8.). What applicant considers to be specific computational operations are themselves abstract mathematical concepts. (e.g., “a current risk unit consumption rate for the vehicle based on the one or more driving behavior characteristics and the environmental conditions”; “recalculates the current risk unit consumption rate based on the updated driving behavior characteristic data”). With respect to the suggestion that there is a “speed or scale beyond human cognitive capacity”, applicant is arguing the benefits of speed and efficiency brought about by automation itself, but these tasks could still be “performed in the human mind” or by a human operator through use of a physical aid.
With respect to Applicant’s suggestion that Applicant’s claims have not been examined “as a whole” or that a reference to the “insurance server” is an acknowledgement that there is no “mental process” claimed, the Examiner disagrees. The 2(A), Prong 1 analysis focused on the aspects of the claimed invention directed to the abstract idea. The additional elements including the environment in which the claimed invention operates (i.e., the “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”, “processor” of “the insurance server”) were discussed in the 2(A), Prong 2 analysis. The Examiner remarks regarding the “insurance server” were to highlight that Applicant’s claimed invention is claimed exclusively from the perspective of the “insurance server”. The “insurance system database”, “vehicle-based data source” and “user interface”, as claimed, are external to that system (i.e., “insurance server”).
NOTE: It is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., (a) “sensor data”, “vehicle-based sensor source” on pg. 13 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/26); (b) “continuous real-time sensor data ingestion”, “improves telematics-based insurance computing” on pg. 14 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/26); (c) “vehicle sensor data”, “real-time sensor-driven feedback system integrated with an iterative account management architecture”, “improvement to telematics-based computing technology” on pg. 16 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/26); and (d) “sensor-driven”, “specific combination of telematics sensor technology” on pg. 19 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/26)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). NOTE: The invention as claimed never mentions “sensor(s)” or “telematics” and neither is required of the claimed invention. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
(2)Applicant argues the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Regarding Applicant’s alleged Consideration 1 (i.e., The claims reflect an improvement to technology and a technical field): Applicant suggests the claimed invention presents a “practical application” because it provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (e.g., (a) “The insurance context is the field of use. The claimed invention is a specific technical implementation within that field (a real-time sensor-driven feedback system integrated with an iterative account management architecture) that constitutes an improvement to telematics-based computing technology regardless of the field in which it is deployed.” See pg. 16 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/15). (b) “improves the performance of the insurance computing system by enabling in-trip cost management rather than post-trip cost determination.” See pg. 16 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/15)). The Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments suggesting the claimed invention (a) provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field suggests the Applicant believes the technical aspects of the invention are substantial. There exists alternative perspectives however.
The claims do not improve upon the computer’s capabilities/ functionality or any other technology or technical field. Applicant has not provided a technology based “improvement” as Applicant suggests, but instead any alleged “improvement” is directed to the underlying abstract idea (i.e., insurance (e.g., usage-based insurance policy)) as noted above.
The claimed invention is similar to examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality such as: (a) Accelerating a process of analyzing data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); (b) Mere automation of manual processes, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and (c) Arranging information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists users in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
The claimed invention is similar to examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology such as: (a) A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and (b) Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.
See also, MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Furthermore, what Applicant argues as “improvement” focuses on the benefits of automation itself (e.g., “real-time” determination/calculation of the “risk unit consumption rate”. See pgs. 19 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 04/15/26.).
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or an equivalent of an “apply it” rationale are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (f).
Regarding Applicant’s alleged Consideration 2 (i.e., The claims apply the exception with a particular machine that imposes meaningful limitations): Applicant’s arguments suggesting the claimed invention applies the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine suggests the Applicant believes the technical aspects of the invention are substantial. There exists alternative perspectives however.
When determining whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more, several factors are relevant such as the particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus; whether the machine or apparatus implements the steps of the method; and whether it’s involvement is extra-solution activity or a field of use.
First, when looking at the particularity or generality of a machine or apparatus the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines) is important. In the instant case most or all of the steps or acts are performed by a general purpose computer (i.e., “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause an insurance system server to:”) that applies the judicial exception by use of conventional computer functions. This does not qualify as a particular machine. This rationale also applies to any suggestion that there is a particular machine because the machine is programmed (i.e., “The machine is not defined merely by its hardware form but by its specific programmed configuration and the specific technical operations it performs.”. See pg. 21 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 04/15/26.).
Second, although the claim invention recites computers or other machinery (i.e., “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause an insurance system server to:”), the computers or other machinery are used “merely as a tool to perform an existing process”. This does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Third, the “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” does not impose meaningful limitations on the claim. The “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” is limited to (a) “data gathering” (e.g., “receive a premium for a usage-based insurance policy, the premium including an amount of funds stored in a user account associated with one of a user or a vehicle; receive, from an insurance system database, insurance information including a first cost per day and a first cost per mile for the usage-based insurance policy; iteratively: receive, from a vehicle-based data source associated with the vehicle, driving data that indicates a start time, an end time, and a distance associated with a particular driving trip, and one or more driving behavior characteristics of the vehicle during the particular driving trip; receive environmental condition data that indicates environmental conditions in which the vehicle operated during the particular driving trip; ”.); (b) “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” (e.g., “determine, based on the one or more driving behavior characteristics and environmental conditions, one or more of a cost per day, and a cost per mile associated with the particular driving trip; determine, in real-time during the particular driving trip, a current risk unit consumption rate for the vehicle based on the one or more driving behavior characteristics and the environmental conditions”; and “determine a cost of the particular driving trip based on a duration of the particular driving trip, the distance of the particular driving trip, and the determined cost per day and the determined cost per mile; reduce the amount of funds associated with the premium and stored in the user account by the cost of the particular driving trip and storing a balance of remaining funds in the user account.”); and (c) “insignificant application” (e.g., “provide, via a user interface and to a user of the vehicle, real-time feedback indicating the current risk unit consumption rate and one or more suggested modifications to reduce the risk unit consumption rate, wherein the insurance system server continuously receives updated driving behavior characteristic data from the vehicle-based data source during the particular driving trip, recalculates the current risk unit consumption rate based on the updated driving behavior characteristic data, and updates the real-time feedback provided via the user interface to reflect the recalculated current risk unit consumption rate, such that changes in a driving behavior of the user during the particular driving trip result in a corresponding real-time change in the current risk unit consumption rate indicated via the user interface;”.) NOTE: Although the “real-time feedback” is provided to a user of the vehicle in the claimed invention, the claimed invention doesn’t require a response from the user of the vehicle; doesn’t require the modification of the driving behavior; doesn’t require a change in the risk unit consumption rate; and/ or doesn’t require the risk unit consumption rate to impact the cost of the particular driving trip or the amount of funds associated with the insurance premium. In a best case scenario, some of these may only be the intended use/ result (e.g., “such that”), but that is an “insignificant application”. Thus, the associated limitations cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.
See also, MPEP §2106.05(b).
With respect to alleged error argument 3 (i.e., The claimed invention applied an improper per se rule regarding generic computer implementation.), the Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner has taken a position that, contrary to Applicant’s argument’s, the claimed invention has not “applied the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine” and the claim limitations are not “indicative of integration into a practical application”.
When determining whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more, several factors are relevant such as the particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus; whether the machine or apparatus implements the steps of the method; and whether it’s involvement is extra-solution activity or a field of use.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception: The role of the device is limited to necessary data gathering and outputting (e.g., “receive a premium for a usage-based insurance policy, the premium including an amount of funds stored in a user account associated with one of a user or a vehicle; receive, from an insurance system database, insurance information including a first cost per day and a first cost per mile for the usage-based insurance policy; iteratively: receive, from a vehicle-based data source associated with the vehicle, driving data that indicates a start time, an end time, and a distance associated with a particular driving trip, and one or more driving behavior characteristics of the vehicle during the particular driving trip;
receive environmental condition data that indicates environmental conditions in which the vehicle operated during the particular driving trip”; and “provide, via a user interface and to a user of the vehicle, real-time feedback indicating the current risk unit consumption rate and one or more suggested modifications to reduce the risk unit consumption rate, wherein the insurance system server continuously receives updated driving behavior characteristic data from the vehicle-based data source during the particular driving trip …..”).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to particular technical environment or field of use. Regarding Applicant’s alleged Consideration 3 (i.e., The claims apply the exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a technical environment): Applicant’s arguments suggesting the claimed invention applies the exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a technological environment are not persuasive.
Collecting information (e.g., “receive a premium for a usage-based insurance policy, the premium including an amount of funds stored in a user account associated with one of a user or a vehicle; receive, from an insurance system database, insurance information including a first cost per day and a first cost per mile for the usage-based insurance policy; iteratively: receive, from a vehicle-based data source associated with the vehicle, driving data that indicates a start time, an end time, and a distance associated with a particular driving trip, and one or more driving behavior characteristics of the vehicle during the particular driving trip; receive environmental condition data that indicates environmental conditions in which the vehicle operated during the particular driving trip;”); (b) analyzing it (e.g., “determine, based on the one or more driving behavior characteristics and environmental conditions, one or more of a cost per day, and a cost per mile associated with the particular driving trip; determine, in substantially real-time during the particular driving trip, a current risk unit consumption rate for the vehicle based on the one or more driving behavior characteristics and the environmental conditions”; and “determine a cost of the particular driving trip based on a duration of the particular driving trip, the distance of the particular driving trip, and the determined cost per day and the determined cost per mile; reduce the amount of funds associated with the premium and stored in the user account by the cost of the particular driving trip and storing a balance of remaining funds in the user account.”); and (c)displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g., “provide, via a user interface and to a user of the vehicle, real-time feedback indicating the current risk unit consumption rate and one or more suggested modifications to reduce the risk unit consumption rate, wherein the insurance system server continuously receives updated driving behavior characteristic data from the vehicle-based data source during the particular driving trip, recalculates the current risk unit consumption rate based on the updated driving behavior characteristic data, and updates the real-time feedback provided via the user interface to reflect the recalculated current risk unit consumption rate, such that changes in a driving behavior of the user during the particular driving trip result in a corresponding real-time change in the current risk unit consumption rate indicated via the user interface;”) merely indicates a field of use or technical environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
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 also, MPEP §2106.05 (h).
NOTE: It is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., (a) “sensor data”, “vehicle-based sensor source” on pg. 13 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/26); (b) “continuous real-time sensor data ingestion”, “improves telematics-based insurance computing” on pg. 14 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/26); (c) “vehicle sensor data”, “real-time sensor-driven feedback system integrated with an iterative account management architecture”, “improvement to telematics-based computing technology” on pg. 16 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/26); and (d) “sensor-driven”, “specific combination of telematics sensor technology” on pg. 19 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/26)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). NOTE: The invention as claimed never mentions “sensor(s)” or “telematics” and neither is required of the claimed invention. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
(3)Applicant argues the claimed invention provides an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)). Applicant argues the claimed invention is unconventional. Applicant argues the claimed combination produces a technical result that cannot be achieved by the abstract idea alone. Applicant argues the cited references do not establish that the claimed combination is conventional or Berkheimer.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 04/03/23 does not provide any indication there is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components, see at least para. [0027] [0036]. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Duddle, US Pub. No. 2011/0106370; Husnjak S, Peraković D, Forenbacher I, Mumdziev M. Telematics system in usage based motor insurance. Procedia Engineering. 2015 Jan 1;100:816-25 (hereinafter Husniak); Barber, US Pub. 2014/0278574; Bowne, US Pub. No. 2013/0006674; Foladare, US Pub. No. 2012/0010906; Foladare, US Pub. No. 2012/0004933; and Collopy, US Pub. No. 2010/0131300 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, “provide”, “continuously receives”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determine”, “recalculates”, “updates”, “reduce”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. See Duddle, at least [0034] [0106] [0107] [0113] [0117] [0143] [0183]. See Husniak, at least pgs. 816 - 818 and 820 - 824. See Barber, at least [0045]. See Bowne, at least [0091] [0116]. See Foladare (‘906), at least [0016] [0020]. See Foladare (‘933), at least [0017] [0020]. See Collopy, at least [0030] [0047]. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, “provide”, “continuously receives”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determine”, “recalculates”, “updates”, “reduce”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 9 - 11, 13 and 21 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Furthermore, with respect to Applicant’s arguments, Applicant is conflating two different standards (i.e., Prior art eligibility consideration with respect to 102 or 103; and “well-understood, routine and conventional” consideration with respect to 101.
NOTE: It is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., (a) “sensor data”, “vehicle-based sensor source” on pg. 13 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/26); (b) “continuous real-time sensor data ingestion”, “improves telematics-based insurance computing” on pg. 14 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/26); (c) “vehicle sensor data”, “real-time sensor-driven feedback system integrated with an iterative account management architecture”, “improvement to telematics-based computing technology” on pg. 16 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/26); and (d) “sensor-driven”, “specific combination of telematics sensor technology” on pg. 19 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/26)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). NOTE: The invention as claimed never mentions “sensor(s)” or “telematics” and neither is required of the claimed invention. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
(4) Applicant argues dependent claim 21.
With respect to dependent claim 21, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Like independent claim 8, dependent claim 21 is similarly directed to the abstract idea of insurance (e.g., usage-based insurance policy). In dependent claim 21 the abstract idea is described with more specificity (i.e., “a revised cost per day” and “a revised cost per mile’), but this is not sufficient to overcome 101. For example, although the steps or acts are further inclusive of “a revised cost per day” and “a revised cost per mile”, dependent claim 21 is similar to independent claim 8. Like independent claim 8, dependent claim 21 encompasses (a) “mathematical concepts”; (b) “certain methods of organizing human activity” such as “economic principles or practices” or “commercial or legal interactions” such as “sales activities or behaviors”, and “business relations”; and (c) “mental processes”. Similar to independent claim 8, the steps or acts are directed to the types of tasks (e.g., (a) data processing (e.g., “determine”, “use”, etc. step(s) as claimed)) considered “well-understood, routine, and conventional.”
NOTE: It is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., (a) “producing a continuously adapting insurance cost model driven by observed behavioral and environmental data” and “producing a continuously adapting cost model across an unlimited number of trips” on pg. 26 of Applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/15/26) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). NOTE: The invention as claimed never mentions an “insurance cost model” or “cost model”; and a “insurance cost model”/ “cost model” is not required of the claimed invention. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
(5) Applicant argues consideration of claims as “a whole”. With respect to alleged error argument 2 ((i.e., The office action analyzed claim elements in isolation rather than considering claims as a whole.), the Examiner disagrees.
All elements of Applicant’s claimed invention were considered and Applicant’s claimed invention has been considered as a whole. In particular, the elements directed to the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) were considered under 2(A), PRONG 1. See at least pgs. 4 - 7 above. The combination of additional elements were considered under 2(A), PRONG 2. See at least pgs. 7 - 8 above. In particular, the inventive concept under 2(B). See at least pg. 8 above. Dependent claims 9 - 11, 13 and 21. See at least pg. 9 above.
112
Withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments and/ or amendments.
Conclusion
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 SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, EST.
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, Christine Tran can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights