DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for continued examination of application 18/130,104 (04/03/23) filed on 6/13/25.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites, “determine, based on the 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;”
This should be -- 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; --
Singular/ plural and/ or consistent terminology problem.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 13 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 and 13 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).
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 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 substantially real-time during the particular driving trip, a current risk unit consumption rate for the vehicle; providing real-time feedback indicating the current consumption rate and one or more suggested modifications to reduce the consumption rate, such that changes in the driving behavior of the user during the trip result in a corresponding near real-time change in the indicated consumption rate; 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, 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 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 substantially real-time during the particular driving trip, a current risk unit consumption rate for the vehicle; providing real-time feedback indicating the current consumption rate and one or more suggested modifications to reduce the consumption rate, such that changes in the driving behavior of the user during the trip result in a corresponding near real-time change in the indicated consumption rate; 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 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 substantially real-time during the particular driving trip, a current risk unit consumption rate for the vehicle; providing real-time feedback indicating the current consumption rate and one or more suggested modifications to reduce the consumption rate, such that changes in the driving behavior of the user during the trip result in a corresponding near real-time change in the indicated consumption rate; 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 “telematics device in the vehicle” is referenced in the claim, the “telematics device in 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 “from a telematics device in 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”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determine”, “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. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Duddle and Husnjak operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, “provide”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determine”, “reduce”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. 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”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determine”, “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 and 13 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites, “determine, in substantially real-time during the particular driving trip, a current risk unit consumption rate for the vehicle;” The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 8 recites, “provide, via a user interface and to a user of the vehicle, real-time feedback indicating the current consumption rate and one or more suggested modifications to reduce the consumption rate, such that changes in the driving behavior of the user during the trip result in a corresponding near real-time change in the indicated consumption rate;” The term “near” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 8 recites, “determine, in substantially real-time during the particular driving trip, a current risk unit consumption rate for the vehicle;
provide, via a user interface and to a user of the vehicle, real-time feedback indicating the current consumption rate and one or more suggested modifications to reduce the consumption rate, such that changes in the driving behavior of the user during the trip result in a corresponding near real-time change in the indicated consumption rate;”
There is an antecedent basis and/ or consistent terminology problem in the claim (i.e., “a current risk unit consumption rate for the vehicle” vs. “the current consumption rate” vs. “the consumption rate” vs. “the indicated consumption rate”).
NOTE: The particular language used is not required, but intended as an aide to the applicant in overcoming one or more of the objections and/ or rejections noted in this office action. Alternative language may be used. Please indicate where support may be found in the specification for any amendments made.
Response to Arguments
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).
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.
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, reduce).
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
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 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; provide ….. real-time feedback indicating the current consumption rate and one or more suggested modifications to reduce the consumption rate, such that changes in the driving behavior of the user during the trip result in a corresponding near real-time change in the indicated consumption rate; 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 and 13 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 and 13), 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).
(2)Applicant argues the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Applicant suggests the claimed invention presents a “practical application” because it provides a technical solution to a technical problem (e.g., “This real-time, behavior-responsive interaction implements a system different from a generic data processor because the system is configured with a dynamic control framework that adjusts based on ongoing vehicle telemetry and contextual conditions, thereby implementing a concrete technological solution.” See pgs. 8 - 9 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 6/13/25.); and provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (e.g., “Taken together, the claim limitations effect an improvement in telematics-based insurance computing …..”. See pg. 9 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 6/13/25.). The Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments suggesting the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem; and 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 “solution”/ “improvement” as applicant suggests, but instead any alleged “solution”/ “improvement” is directed to the underlying abstract idea (i.e., insurance (e.g., usage-based insurance policy)) as noted above.
Furthermore, what applicant argues as the technical “solution”/ “improvement” focuses on the benefits of automation itself (e.g., “real-time or near real-time” determination of the consumption rate. See pgs. 8 - 9 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 6/13/25).
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).
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., “they reflect a non-traditional, technological implementation of insurance logic operating as a live vehicle control feedback system”. See pg. 9 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 6/13/25.).
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 telematics device in 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 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”; 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 consumption rate and one or more suggested modifications to reduce the consumption rate, such that changes in the driving behavior of the user during the trip result in a corresponding near real-time change in the indicated consumption rate”.) 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 consumption rate; and/ or doesn’t require the 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).
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 telematics device in 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 consumption rate and one or more suggested modifications to reduce the consumption rate, such that changes in the driving behavior of the user during the trip result in a corresponding near real-time change in the indicated consumption rate;”).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
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 telematics device in 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;”); analyzing it (e.g., “determine, based on the 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”; 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 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 consumption rate and one or more suggested modifications to reduce the consumption rate, such that changes in the driving behavior of the user during the trip result in a corresponding near real-time change in the indicated consumption rate;”) 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).
(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 “non-conventional” features.
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. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Duddle and Husnjak operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, “provide”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determine”, “reduce”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. 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”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determine”, “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 and 13 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Conclusion
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