DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a final office action in response to the amendment filed 8 December 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 2, 11, and 21 have been received and are acknowledged. Claim 1 was previously cancelled. .
The applicant's claim for benefit of as a of CON of 16/ 941, 971 CON filed 7/29/2020 (US PAT 11651438); 16/941, 971 is a CON of 15/397,199 filed 01/03/2017 (US PAT 10776877); 15/397,199 is a CON of 15/170,203 filed 06/01/2016 (US PAT 9569799); 15/170,203 is a CON of 14/607,662 filed 01/28/2015 (US PAT 9390452); has been received and acknowledged.
Claims 2-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection Applicant again disagrees that the pending claims are not patently distinct from US Pat 11651438 and requests the rejection be held in abeyance.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion. Furthermore, as noted below, the non-statutory double patenting rejection as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of US PAT 11651438, Claims 1-20 of U.S. PAT 10776877, Claims 1-14 of US PAT 9569799 and claims 1-4 of US PAT 9390452. The rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant generally asserts that the prior art of Coleman does not disclose the newly amended claim language. Examiner respectfully disagrees as noted in the previously and in the rejection below. Coleman discloses both continual collection of data including real-time and the recalculation based on data collected during travel as clarified in the rejection below(See specifically [58] the complexity rating can be used for retroactive, real-time or prospective insurance premium pricing…. A scheme for real-time pricing is described in relation to Fig. 8) (See also Fig. 1-4, [0024] vehicles… data collection device; [54] data sent to the data processing service or insurance company system… continually… [58] continually monitored…) and the displaying/indicating step ( See at least Coleman, Fig. 8; Fig. 9, [54] data sent to the data processing service or insurance company system… continually… route complexity [58] real-time pricing… customer being continually monitored…[64-66] Fig. 8… flowchart of a method for use in a prepaid or pay as you go insurance system…. inputs… the data collection device collects data as the vehicle travels along the route. If the driver goes off the path of the route, the insurance premium is recalculated for the new route and the user is alerted….driver is billed based on the route taken… [0067-0070] Fig. 9… pay-as- you -go insurance… user terminal…charge account…. Claim 1). The citations to the rejections have been clarified and are maintained.
As such Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of US PAT 11651438, Claims 1-20 of U.S. PAT 10776877, Claims 1-14 of US PAT 9569799 and claims 1-4 of US PAT 9390452. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are substantially similar and have duplicate claim elements.
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 of this title, 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 -10 , 11 -12, 17-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130046559 A1, Coleman et al. hereinafter referred to as Coleman in view of US 20100131304 A1, Collopy et al. hereinafter referred to as Collopy.
Claim 2
Coleman discloses 2. A risk unit based insurance system, comprising:
an on-board vehicle computing device of a vehicle in wireless communication with an insurance system server and at least one vehicle sensor arranged in the vehicle, the on-board vehicle computing device including at least one processor, and at least one memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the on- board vehicle computing device to: (See at least Coleman, Fig. 1)
receive, from the at least one vehicle sensor arranged on the vehicle and while the vehicle is being driven on a particular trip operated, driving data associated with at least one of: a driving behavior of a user or an environment in which the vehicle is being operated; (See at least Coleman, Fig. 1, 102 data collection device..; Fig. 3 data collection device; vehicle telematics sensors…. [both located in vehicle]; Fig. 4; Fig. 7 [2] specific path a vehicle takes from one destination to another… [0024] vehicles… data collection device; [54] data sent to the data processing service or insurance company system… continually… [58] continually monitored…[65-66] path… route… )
analyze, in real-time, the received driving data; (See at least Coleman, Fig. 8; Fig. 9, [0031] pay-as-you-go insurance…trip or mile…Fig. 8 and 9… [0058] complexity rating… real time…continually monitored.. refund… credit… surcharge …wherein a surcharge is indicative of a balance in a an account being reduced )
determine, in real-time and based on the analyzed received driving data, a consumption rate of risk units, wherein the consumption rate is dynamically updated based on changes to one or more of the driving behavior of the user and the environment that occur during the particular trip; (See at least Coleman, Fig. 8; Fig. 9, [0031] pay-as-you-go insurance…trip or mile [0058] complexity rating… real time…continually monitored…Fig. 8…[65] road quality… traffic conditions…habit information)
indicate, via a user output interface of the on-board vehicle computing device and while the vehicle is being driven on the particular trip, the dynamically updated determined consumption rate; and ( See at least Coleman, Fig. 8; Fig. 9, [54] data sent to the data processing service or insurance company system… continually… route complexity [58] real-time pricing… customer being continually monitored…[64-66] Fig. 8… flowchart of a method for use in a prepaid or pay as you go insurance system…. inputs… the data collection device collects data as the vehicle travels along the route. If the driver goes off the path of the route, the insurance premium is recalculated for the new route and the user is alerted….driver is billed based on the route taken… [0067-0070] Fig. 9… pay-as- you -go insurance… user terminal…charge account…. Claim 1)
… based on a notification that a number of risk units in a risk unit account associated with the user is below a predetermined threshold,… (See at least Coleman, Fig. 8; Fig. 9, [0031] pay-as-you-go insurance…trip or mile [0058] complexity rating… real time…continually monitored.. refund… credit… surcharge …wherein a surcharge is indicative of a balance in an account being reduced …and being ‘surcharged’ is the notification )
Coleman does not directly disclose the following; however, Collopy teaches:
modify operation of at least one system of the vehicle …wherein modifying the operation of the at least one system of the vehicle includes at least one of: flashing headlights, causing a horn to blare, or preventing the vehicle from starting. (See at least Collopy, [0068-0069] in response to negative evaluation…prevent vehicle from being driven…immobilize vehicle)
As such one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would find it obvious to combine the modification of vehicle operation feature of Collopy with the invention of Coleman. One would be motivated to track and monitor individual drivers. ( Collopy, [0034])
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Coleman discloses a method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics including real-time telematics, calculating a complexity rating on which to base a pay-as-you-go insurance rate/policy and a surcharge/refund/credit when a threshold is reached. Collopy is another method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics for insurance purposes including a feature is a modification the operation of the vehicle including immobilization. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics including real-time telematics, calculating a complexity rating on which to base a pay-as-you-go insurance rate/policy and a surcharge/refund/credit when a threshold is reached where the threshold ‘surcharge’ is a modification the operation of the vehicle including immobilization). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Coleman / Collopy.
Claims 11 and 21
Coleman discloses On-board vehicle computing device of a vehicle and One or more non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause an on-board vehicle computing device (See at least Coleman, Fig. 1); to:
receive, via wireless communication with an insurance system server, and from at least one vehicle sensor arranged in a vehicle and while the vehicle is being driven on a particular trip driving data associated with at least one of: driving behaviors of a user or an environment in which the vehicle is being operated (See at least Coleman, Fig. 1, 102 data collection device..; Fig. 3 data collection device; vehicle telematics sensors…. [both located in vehicle]; Fig. 4; Fig. 7 [2] specific path a vehicle takes from one destination to another… [0024] vehicles… data collection device; [54] data sent to the data processing service or insurance company system… continually… [58] continually monitored…real-time…[65-66] path… route…. )
analyze, in real-time, the received driving data; (See at least Coleman, Fig. 8; Fig. 9, [0031] pay-as-you-go insurance…trip or mile [0058] complexity rating… real time…continually monitored.. refund… credit… surcharge …wherein a surcharge is indicative of a balance in a an account being reduced )
determine, in real-time and based on the analyzed received driving data, a consumption rate of risk units, wherein the consumption rate is dynamically updated based on changes to one or more of the driving behavior of the user and the environment that occur during the particular trip; (See at least Coleman, Fig. 8 road quality, traffic conditions… calculate…; Fig. 9, [0031] pay-as-you-go insurance…trip or mile [0058] complexity rating… real time…continually monitored…Fig. 8…64-66] Fig. 8… flowchart of a method for use in a prepaid or pay as you go insurance system…. inputs… the data collection device collects data as the vehicle travels along the route. If the driver goes off the path of the route, the insurance premium is recalculated for the new route and the user is alerted….driver is billed based on the route taken… [65] road quality… traffic conditions…habit information )
indicate, via a user output interface of the on-board vehicle computing device and while the vehicle is being driven on the particular trip, the dynamically updated determined consumption rate; and ( See at least Coleman, Fig. 8; Fig. 9, [54] data sent to the data processing service or insurance company system… continually… route complexity [58] real-time pricing… customer being continually monitored…[64-66] Fig. 8… flowchart of a method for use in a prepaid or pay as you go insurance system…. inputs… the data collection device collects data as the vehicle travels along the route. If the driver goes off the path of the route, the insurance premium is recalculated for the new route and the user is alerted….driver is billed based on the route taken… [0067-0070] Fig. 9… pay-as- you -go insurance… user terminal…charge account…. Claim 1)
transmit, to the insurance system server and by the on-board vehicle computing device, the determined consumption rate; (See at least Coleman, Fig. 8; Fig. 9, [0031] pay-as-you-go insurance…trip or mile [0058] complexity rating… real time…continually monitored.. refund… credit… surcharge)
receive, from the insurance system server, a notification that a number of risk units in a risk unit account associated with the user is below a predetermined threshold; and (See at least Coleman, Fig. 8; Fig. 9, [0031] pay-as-you-go insurance…trip or mile [0058] complexity rating… real time…continually monitored.. refund… credit… surcharge …wherein a surcharge is indicative of a balance in an account being reduced …and being ‘surcharged’ is the notification)
… based on the number of risk units in the risk unit account being below the predetermined threshold, (See at least Coleman, Fig. 8; Fig. 9, [0031] pay-as-you-go insurance…trip or mile [0058] complexity rating… real time…continually monitored.. refund… credit… surcharge …wherein a surcharge is indicative of a balance in an account being reduced …and being ‘surcharged’ is the notification)
Coleman does not directly disclose the following; however, Collopy teaches:
modify operation of at least one system of the vehicle wherein modifying the operation of the at least one system of the vehicle includes at least one of: flashing headlights, causing a horn to blare, or preventing the vehicle from starting. (See at least Collopy, [0068-0069] in response to negative evaluation…prevent vehicle from being driven…immobilize vehicle)
As such one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would find it obvious to combine the modification of vehicle operation feature of Collopy with the invention of Coleman. One would be motivated to track and monitor individual drivers. ( Collopy, [0034])
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Coleman discloses a method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics including real-time telematics, calculating a complexity rating on which to base a pay-as-you-go insurance rate/policy and a surcharge/refund/credit when a threshold is reached. Collopy is another method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics for insurance purposes including a feature is a modification the operation of the vehicle including immobilization. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics including real-time telematics, calculating a complexity rating on which to base a pay-as-you-go insurance rate/policy and a surcharge/refund/credit when a threshold is reached where the threshold ‘surcharge’ is a modification the operation of the vehicle including immobilization). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Coleman / Collopy.
Claim 3
Coleman and Collopy disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 2.
Coleman further discloses:
3. The risk unit based insurance system of claim 2,
wherein the at least one memory of the on-board vehicle computing device further includes instructions that, when executed, cause the on-board vehicle computing device to:
receive the determined consumption rate; and reduce the number of risk units in the risk unit account based on the determined consumption rate. (See at least Coleman, Fig. 8; Fig. 9, [0031] pay-as-you-go insurance…trip or mile [0058] complexity rating… real time…continually monitored.. refund… credit… surcharge …wherein a surcharge is indicative of a balance in an account being reduced …and being ‘surcharged’ is the notification )
Claim 4
Coleman and Collopy disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 2.
Coleman further discloses:
4. The risk unit based insurance system of claim 2,
wherein the at least one memory of the on-board vehicle computing device further includes instructions that, when executed, cause the on-board vehicle computing device to:
transmit, via wireless communication network, the determined consumption rate to a mobile device of the user; and display the determined consumption rate on a mobile device of the user. (See at least Coleman, Fig. 8; Fig. 9, [0031] pay-as-you-go insurance…trip or mile [0058] complexity rating… real time…continually monitored.. refund… credit… surcharge…[0067] user terminal….smart phone)
Claim 5
Coleman and Collopy disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 2.
Coleman further discloses:
5. The risk unit based insurance system of claim 2,
wherein the at least one memory of the on-board vehicle computing device further includes instructions that, when executed, cause the on-board vehicle computing device to:
responsive to determining that the number of risk units is below the predetermined threshold, determine at least one refill option for the user; and present, at a display of the on-board vehicle computing device, the at least one refill option. (See at least Coleman, Fig. 8; Fig. 9, [0031] pay-as-you-go insurance…trip or mile [0058] complexity rating… real time…continually monitored.. refund… credit… surcharge …wherein a surcharge is indicative of a balance in a an account being reduced [70] select the route… charge the user’s payment account )
Claim 6
Coleman and Collopy disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 5.
Coleman further discloses:
6. The risk unit based insurance system of claim 5,
wherein the at least one refill option is further displayed via a mobile device of the user. (See at least Coleman, Fig. 8; Fig. 9, [0031] pay-as-you-go insurance…trip or mile [0058] complexity rating… real time…continually monitored.. refund… credit… surcharge …wherein a surcharge is indicative of a balance in a an account being reduced [70] select the route… charge the user’s payment account )
Claim 7
Coleman and Collopy disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 2.
Coleman further discloses:
7. The risk unit based insurance system of claim 2,
wherein the at least one vehicle sensor includes a plurality of sensors. (See at least Coleman, Fig. 1; Fig. 3 sensors; Fig. 4; Fig. 7 [0024] vehicles… data collection device)
Claim 8
Coleman and Collopy disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 7.
Coleman further discloses:
8. The risk unit based insurance system of claim 7,
wherein the plurality of sensors includes at least one of: a accelerometer, a speedometer, an external temperature sensor, or precipitation sensor. (See at least Coleman, Fig. 1; Fig. 3; Fig. 4; Fig. 7 [0024] vehicles… data collection device…accelerometer….)
Claim 9
Coleman and Collopy disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 8.
Coleman further discloses:
9. The risk unit based insurance system of claim 8,
wherein the driving data associated with driving behaviors of the user includes at least: hard braking, rapid acceleration, rapid deceleration, or swerving. (See at least Coleman, [45] accelerations, decelerations, hard turns, speeds, lane changes speeds….)
Claim 10
Coleman and Collopy disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 2.
Coleman further discloses:
10. The risk unit based insurance system of claim 2,
wherein the at least one memory of the on-board vehicle computing device further includes instructions that, when executed, cause the on-board vehicle computing device to
receive, from the insurance system server, the notification that the number of risk units in the risk unit account is below the predetermined threshold. (See at least Coleman, Fig. 8; Fig. 9, [0031] pay-as-you-go insurance…trip or mile [0058] complexity rating… real time…continually monitored.. refund… credit… surcharge ……wherein a refund or credit or surcharge is an increase or decrease)
Claim 12
Coleman and Collopy disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 11.
Coleman further discloses:
12. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11,
wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the on-board vehicle computing device to:
send, responsive to a user input, a request to obtain a risk unit based insurance policy for the vehicle, the risk unit based insurance policy including a plurality of risk units forming a balance of risk units in the risk unit account, the plurality of risk units representing a cost to insure an average user for a predetermined period of time and the balance of risk units being reduced upon operation of the vehicle. (See at least Coleman, Fig. 8; Fig. 9, [0031] pay-as-you-go insurance…trip or mile [0058] complexity rating… real time…continually monitored.. refund… credit… surcharge …wherein a surcharge is indicative of a balance in a an account being reduced )
Claim 16
Coleman and Collopy disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 11.
Coleman further discloses:
16. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11,
wherein the driving data collected from the at least one vehicle sensor includes a type of road, a road geometry, or a road hazard. (See at least Coleman,[50] Fig. 5…data for trip calculated… highway or country road…[53] vehicle kinematics other than location can be measured…complex route…)
Claim 17
Coleman and Collopy disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 11.
Coleman further discloses:
17. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11,
wherein the driving data collected from the at least one vehicle sensor includes a time-of-day factor. (See at least Coleman, Fig. 8; Fig. 9, [0031] pay-as-you-go insurance…trip or mile [0056-57] telematics data…time of day…)
Claim 18
Coleman and Collopy disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 11.
Coleman further discloses:
18. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11,
wherein the driving data collected from the at least one vehicle sensor includes a braking rate, an acceleration rate, a cornering factor, a trip duration, a swerving factor, or a distracted driving factor. (See at least Coleman, Fig. 8; Fig. 9, [0031] pay-as-you-go insurance…trip or mile [0056-57] maximum speed, average speed, diving locations, time of day of travel, vehicle safety…vehicle kinematics data (i.e. speed. Velocity, acceleration, jerk, etc. … )
Claims 13-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman in view of Collopy further in view of US 201220072243 A1, Collins et al. hereinafter referred to as Collins.
Claim 13
Coleman and Collopy disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 11.
Coleman and Collopy do not directly disclose the following; however, Collins teaches:
13. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11,
wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the on-board vehicle computing device to detect and record, using the at least one vehicle sensor, operational parameters of the vehicle. (See at least Collins, [68] monitoring options… for example… tire pressure)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Coleman discloses a method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics including real-time telematics, calculating a complexity rating on which to base a pay-as-you-go insurance rate/policy and a surcharge/refund/credit when a threshold is reached. Collopy is another method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics for insurance purposes including a feature is a modification the operation of the vehicle including immobilization. Collins discloses a method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics for insurance purposes. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics including real-time telematics, including a feature which modifies the operation of the vehicle). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Coleman / Collopy/Collins.
Claim 14
Coleman and Collopy disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 11.
Coleman and Collopy do not directly disclose the following; however, Collins teaches:
14. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11,
wherein the driving data collected from the at least one vehicle sensor includes at least one of driving habits of the user, vehicle specification parameters, a condition of the vehicle, or a performance of the vehicle. (See at least Collins, [68-69] monitoring options… for example… tire pressure…speeding violations…)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Coleman discloses a method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics including real-time telematics, calculating a complexity rating on which to base a pay-as-you-go insurance rate/policy and a surcharge/refund/credit when a threshold is reached. Collopy is another method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics for insurance purposes including a feature is a modification the operation of the vehicle including immobilization. Collins discloses a method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics for insurance purposes. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics including real-time telematics, including a feature which modifies the operation of the vehicle). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Coleman / Collopy/Collins.
Claim 15
Coleman and Collopy disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 11.
Coleman and Collopy do not directly disclose the following; however, Collins teaches:
15. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11,
wherein the driving data collected from the at least one vehicle sensor includes data identifying a current driver from among a number of different possible drivers. (See at least Collins, [68-69] monitoring options…such as family… telematics device… include user input…with which to identify who …is driving… alternatively.. include monitoring device… such as biometric system…RFID)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Coleman discloses a method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics including real-time telematics, calculating a complexity rating on which to base a pay-as-you-go insurance rate/policy and a surcharge/refund/credit when a threshold is reached. Collopy is another method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics for insurance purposes including a feature is a modification the operation of the vehicle including immobilization. Collins discloses a method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics for insurance purposes. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics including real-time telematics, including a feature which modifies the operation of the vehicle). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Coleman / Collopy/Collins.
Claim 19
Coleman and Collopy disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 11.
Coleman and Collopy do not directly disclose the following; however, Collins teaches:
19. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11,
wherein the driving data collected from the at least one vehicle sensor relates to a moving violation, an observance of a traffic signal by the vehicle, or an observance of a traffic sign by the vehicle. (See at least Collins, [68-69] monitoring options… for example… tire pressure…speeding violations…)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Coleman discloses a method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics including real-time telematics, calculating a complexity rating on which to base a pay-as-you-go insurance rate/policy and a surcharge/refund/credit when a threshold is reached. Collopy is another method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics for insurance purposes including a feature is a modification the operation of the vehicle including immobilization. Collins discloses a method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics for insurance purposes. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics including real-time telematics, including a feature which modifies the operation of the vehicle). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Coleman / Collopy/Collins.
Claim 20
Coleman and Collopy disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 11.
Coleman and Collopy do not directly disclose the following; however, Collins teaches:
20. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11,
wherein the driving data collected from the at least one vehicle sensor includes a physical state of a driver or a mental state of the driver. (See at least Collins, [0067] parameters;[0087] naturalistic behavior; [0114] driver distraction, driver fatigue, driver substance abuse parameter)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Coleman discloses a method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics including real-time telematics, calculating a complexity rating on which to base a pay-as-you-go insurance rate/policy and a surcharge/refund/credit when a threshold is reached. Collopy is another method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics for insurance purposes including a feature is a modification the operation of the vehicle including immobilization. Collins discloses a method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics for insurance purposes. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a method and system of monitoring driver behavior and vehicle telematics including real-time telematics, including a feature which modifies the operation of the vehicle). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Coleman / Collopy/Collins.
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 ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691