DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of acts for providing alerts. The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the steps of
in response to a collision involving a first vehicle having occurred:
identifying, automatically by a computing device communicatively coupled to the first vehicle, a first participant involved in the collision based, at least in part, on first vehicle telematics data, the first vehicle telematics data comprising technical information based on first vehicle automotive sensors relating to an operation of the first vehicle prior to or during the collision (providing information, i.e. data gathering process, Revised Guidance 55, n. 31);
determining, automatically by the computing device, whether a second vehicle was involved in the collision based, at least in part, on the first vehicle telematics data (providing information, i.e. data gathering process, Revised Guidance 55, n. 31); and in response to the second vehicle being involved in the collision:
identifying, automatically by the computing device, a second participant involved in the collision based, at least in part, on the first vehicle telematics data (mental process including “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”, Revised Guidance 52, n. 14 & n.15);
analyzing, automatically by the computing device, the first vehicle telematics data and second vehicle telematics data received from the second vehicle at the computing device communicatively coupled to the second vehicle according to at least one of one or more fault determination rules, the second vehicle telematics data comprising technical information based on second vehicle automotive sensors relating to an operation of the second vehicle prior to or during the collision (mental process including “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”, Revised Guidance 52, n. 14 & n.15);
determining, automatically by the computing device, one of the first or second participants as an at-fault participant based, at least in part, on the at least one of the one or more fault determination rules, the first vehicle telematics data, and the second vehicle telematics data (mental process including “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”, Revised Guidance 52, n. 14 & n.15); and
transmitting a message comprising an identification of the at-fault participant as determined based on the at least one of the one or more fault determination rules, the first vehicle telematics data, and the second vehicle telematics data (insignificant extra-solution activity, see steps 2A2 and B below).
In order words, the claim describe a process for collecting information, comparing and analyzing it, and using rules to identify options and transmitting certain results of the collection and analysis. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”), or in the alternative, the organizing human activity in the form of fundamental economic practices (insurance, risk mitigation). These limitations fall under the “mental processes” and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity” groups (Step 2A1-Yes).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using computer devices (processors). The processors in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions. These generic processors limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The transmitting/obtaining via a mobile device steps are simple an insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-No).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 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. Because the step of transmitting/obtaining a message via a mobile device, were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that transmitting/obtaining steps are anything other than generic transmission and receiving data, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs., 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 generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that these steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer option 2 (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 11 and 20 recite corresponding systems with similar limitations as claim 1. These claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 2 and 12 recite wherein the one or more first communications are received from communication equipment installed at the first vehicle, attached to a diagnostics port of the first vehicle, or combinations thereof.
This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 1 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 4 and 14 recite wherein one of the first communications received identifies a current geographic location of the first vehicle and further comprising: identifying one or more repair service centers that are located within a predetermined radius of the current geographic location; and transmitting, to a communication device associated with an operator of the first vehicle, a communication that includes information that identifies the one or more repair service centers.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements are similarly as discussed in the claim 1 analysis, above. Finally, when viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 5 and 15 recite receiving, from the communication device, a communication that identifies one of the repair service centers selected by the operator.
This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 1 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 6 and 16 recite wherein the first vehicle telematics data received includes vehicle diagnostic data associated with the first vehicle and further comprising: transmitting the vehicle diagnostic data to a second communication device associated with the identified one repair service center selected by the operator.
This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 1 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 7 and 17 recite indicating, in the communication transmitted to the communication device, that one or more of the repair service centers are preferred repair service centers.
This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 1 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 8-9 and 18 recite providing a reward to the operator in response to receipt of a communication from the communication device that identifies one of the preferred repair service centers selected by the operator; and wherein the reward is a discount associated with an insurance policy purchased by the operator.
This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 1 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 10 and 19 recite transmitting a request to the first vehicle for additional information regarding the collision, and receiving, at the computing device from the first vehicle, one or more additional communications that include the additional information regarding the collision.
This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 1 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 21 recites where identifying, automatically by the computing device, the second participant involved in the collision based, at least in part, on the first vehicle telematics data further comprises: receiving event data comprising an event record from the first vehicle and an event record from the second vehicle; comparing the event record from the first vehicle with the event record from the second vehicle to determine whether a match is found therebetween; upon determination of the match, utilizing the event data to identify the second participant involved in the collision.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements are similarly as discussed in the claim 1 analysis, above. Finally, when viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 22 recites where identifying, automatically by the computing device, the second participant involved in the collision based, at least in part, on the first vehicle telematics data further comprises: utilizing event data from a recording of the first vehicle to identify the second vehicle.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The additional elements are similarly as discussed in the claim 1 analysis, above. Finally, when viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is not directed to any of the enumerated group (or subgroup) of an abstract idea (“certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or “mental processes”).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner has not designated each and every limitation as an abstract idea. As analyzed above, each limitation has been identified as data gathering steps, abstract concepts, or insignificant extra-solution activity.
Applicant’s citation of case laws is acknowledged. However, these case laws are not relevant to the current claimed invention. The present claimed invention is very rather similar to Electric Power Group, LLC that was deemed ineligible. More importantly, as similarly postulated by the Court, the focus of this present claim is on collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (or using rules to identify options and transmitting certain results of the collection and analysis).
A critical aspect of the claimed invention that could have potentially overcome the rejection is the “determining, automatically by the computing device, whether a second vehicle was involved in the collision based, at least in part, on the first vehicle telematics data; and in response to the second vehicle being involved in the collision: identifying, automatically by the computing device, a second participant involved in the collision based, at least in part, on the first vehicle telematics data”. However, these limitations as described in the specification involves mental abstract processes including observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The determination of the second vehicle including the identification of the second participant, based on matching event records (such as time, date, location of collision) with the first vehicle including the first participant, is an abstract mental process.
Applicant is encouraged to study the Electric Power Group, LLC decision. Claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OLABODE AKINTOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-3629. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30a-6:00p.
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.
/OLABODE AKINTOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691