DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 October 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant has amended claims 2, 9 and 16. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1, 6, 13 and 20 were canceled prior to previous office action. Thus, claims 2-5, 7-12, 14-19 and 21 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 30 October 2025 with respect to:
objection to claims 2, 9 and 16,
rejections of claims 2-5, 8-12, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy et al (US Pub. No. 20210133871 A1) in view of Stempora (US Pub. No. 20150025917 A1) in further view of Hynes (US Pub. No. 20160174132 A1), and
rejections of claims 7, 14 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy in view of Stempora, in further view of Hynes, and in further view of Billman et al (US Patent No. 10,657,597 B1)
have been fully considered. Amendments to claims have been entered.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims regarding claim objections and the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
If, in the opinion of the Applicant, a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the subject application, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the undersigned Examiner at the phone number listed below.
Priority
This application, filed 06 April 2023 is a continuation of application 16/119,113 filed on 31 August 2018, and is now US Patent No. 11,651,436. Application 16/119,113 is a continuation of 14/715,751 filed 19 May 2015 and is now US Patent No. 10,089,694. Accordingly, this application is given priority from 19 May 2015.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy et al (US Pub. No. 20210133871 A1) ) in view of Stempora (US Pub. No. 20150025917 A1), in further view of Schumann et al (US Pub. No. 20130138460 A1), in further view of Hynes (US Pub. No. 20160174132 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Konrardy teaches systems and methods generally relate to evaluating, monitoring, pricing, and processing vehicle insurance policies for vehicles including autonomous (or semi-autonomous) vehicle operation features [0030]. He teaches:
receiving an input of a destination of a trip at a computing device associated with a driver of a vehicle – [0080];
determining a set of available driving options and associated deductible amounts for the driver based on past telematics data and the input of the destination – [0247];
receiving, at a client-side deductible determination program, a selection of one of the available driving options and a respective deductible amount – [0247];
receiving, at the client-side deductible determination program, real-time telematics data … from a set of one or more sensors – [0165]-[0173];
adjusting, at the client-side deductible determination program, the respective deductible amount based on the determined degree of safety – [0011], [0013], [0036], [0038], [0053], [0092] and [0247].
Konrardy teaches determining the expected actual loss or operating data using known techniques, such as regression analysis or machine learning tools (e.g., neural network algorithms or support vector machines) [0118]. Konrardy does not explicitly disclose:
selecting one of a plurality of algorithms based on the real-time telematics data and the computing device usage data…(emphasis added)
However, Stempora teaches systems and methods for determining the level of risk associated with at least one individual and underwriting or generating a risk score, a cost of insurance, or a cost of insurance and a risk score for at least one individual [0002]. He teaches one or more software components comprising a plurality of algorithms, such as for example, a cognitive capacity algorithm, a cognitive load algorithm, a communication algorithm, a movement isolation algorithm, an algorithm that monitors the use of one or more software applications accessible using a portable device, an algorithm that monitors the use of one or more functional features of the portable device, an algorithm that processes data received from the vehicle, an algorithm that determines the risk associated with the use of one or more functional features of the portable device while operating the vehicle, an algorithm that determines levels of distracted driving, etc. [0105]. He teaches the portable device as including a cell phone [0072].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Konrardy’s to include selecting an algorithm based on driving situations as taught by Stempora in order to correlate the risk-related decision-making processes with decisions and their resulting decision outcomes – Stempora [0061].
Stempora teaches generating a weighted model for factoring in more than one correlation between the decision-making process, corresponding decision outcomes, and loss information [0177]. Neither Konrardy nor Stempora explicitly discloses:
the one of the plurality of algorithms defines one or more weights for one or more algorithm variables, and wherein the one or more algorithm variables include the selected one of the available driving options; and
determining, using the selected one of the plurality of algorithms at the client-side deductible determination program, a degree of safety based on the real-time telematics data and the computing device usage data.
However, Schumann teaches systems and methods for pricing an insurance premium based on telematics data [0004]. He teaches data processing service receiving telematics data in real time, or in near-real time [0052]. He teaches an insurance system determining a premium price or a set of premium prices based on vehicle data, purchaser data, telematics data, processed driving behavior characteristics, service history, previous telematics data, third party data, and current insurance data [0072]. Safe driving behaviors, low mileage, seatbelt usage, good vehicle conditions, good attention to service needs, and good financial history may be associated with lower insurance premiums. The various factors may be rated separately, e.g., an overall safety rating can be calculated, or a driving behavior rating can be calculated. The factors can be weighted and the premium price based on the various rating factors and their relative weights [Id.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Konrardy’s to include weighting factors to determining insurance premiums as taught by Schumann in order to calculate insurance rates that correspond to actual driving behaviors exhibited by the customers being insured and monitored – Schumann [0002].
Neither Konrardy, Stempora nor Schumann explicitly discloses:
receiving, at the client-side deductible determination program, … computing device usage data during the trip (emphasis added) from a set of one or more sensors;
transmitting, by the client-side deductible determination program and based upon the selected one of the available driving options, instructions to the computing device to block text messages and phone calls; and
selecting one of a plurality of algorithms based on the real-time telematics data and the computing device usage data …(emphasis added).
However, Hynes teaches methods and systems for limiting the usage of a mobile device while driving wherein a computer-implemented method controls access to a mobile device operated by a user [0005]. The method comprises determining a physical speed at which the mobile device is moving, and upon determining that the physical speed exceeds a predefined threshold speed, limiting the user's access to the mobile device [Id.]. He teaches an anti-texting program that limits the use of mobile communications devices while driving [0019]. The anti-texting program may restrict or otherwise disable the use of certain aspects of the device such as texting voice calls, Internet browsing and the like. In other cases, the anti-texting program may restrict use or access to the entire device [Id.]. He teaches notification options provided by the operating system of the mobile device which may be used by the anti-texting program to disable the entire device and force the user to launch the anti-texting program if the user wants to use the device [0022]. He teaches the anti-texting program may conditionally limit the use of a mobile device based on the speed of a vehicle obtained in real time through On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) capabilities (Applicant’s driving situation information) provided by the vehicle [0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Konrardy’s to include an anti-texting program that restricts or disables texting voice calls as taught by Hynes in order to prevent the use of mobile communications devices while driving which can lead to erratic, careless and dangerous driving – Hynes [0002].
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Konrardy teaches the available driving options as including different routes to reach the destination associated with different respective deductible amounts - [0247].
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Konrardy teaches the available driving options as including recommendations associated with when to depart on the trip to avoid traffic - [0007] and [0097] “receive information regarding an incident from the on-board computer and determine relevant additional information regarding the incident from the sensor data”.
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Konrardy does not explicitly disclose causing to display reasons for adjustment after adjusting the deductible amount.
However, Stempora teaches a method of generating a risk score, a cost of insurance, or a risk score and a cost of insurance for at least one individual by using a visual notification [0198].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Konrardy’s to include using a visual notification of a cost of insurance as taught by Stempora because it provides suggestions or directions for improvement or behavior modification in real-time – Stempora [0198].
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Konrardy does not explicitly disclose the respective deductible amount being decreased in response to an increase in the degree of safety or increased in response to a decrease in the degree of safety.
However, Stempora teaches negative correlations and positive correlations in statistical data for determining decision-making processes, wherein a negative correlation can increase the risk and result in an increase in the cost of insurance - [0063], and a positive correlation can decrease the risk and result in a decrease in the cost of insurance - [0064].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Konrardy’s to include negative and positive correlations resulting in respective increases and decreases in the cost of insurance as taught by Stempora in order to help assess and price risk – Stempora [0003].
Claims 7, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy in view of Stempora, in further view of Schumann, in further view of Hynes, and in further view of Billman et al (US Patent No. 10,657,597 B1).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 21, neither Konrardy, Stempora nor Hynes explicitly discloses:
the respective deductible amount is further adjusted based on data regarding past accidents or past insurance claims, wherein the respective deductible amount is decreased when a number of past accidents on a route along which the vehicle is moving is below a first threshold or increased when the number of past accidents on the route is above a second threshold
However, Billman teaches systems and methods to provide dynamic insurance premiums [col. 1 lines 20-22]. He teaches computing a plurality of insurance premiums corresponding respectively to each of a plurality of routes [col. 14 lines 45-59]. The insurance premiums may be based on the potential exposures along each route, calculated by analyzing the traffic patterns, accident history, crime rate, or other metrics that may impact insurance losses [Id.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Konrardy’s to include determining insurance premiums based on the potential exposures along each of a plurality of routes as taught by Billman in order to provide discounts to drivers that choose a safer route over a less safe route – Billman [col. 2 lines 60-66].
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Krause et al: “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ENCOURAGING SAFETY PERFORMANCE”, (US Pub. No. 20120072241 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD J BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)270-3330. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am to 3:30 pm M-F.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/EDWARD J BAIRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692