Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is in response to the amendments and arguments filed 1/16/2026 and the RCE filed 11/03/2025. Claims 25-48 are pending. Claims 1-24 have been canceled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/16/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 26-28, 30-32, 34-36, 38-40, 42-44 and 46-48 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the originally examined claims are directed to the group insurance plan and identifying users based on driving patterns while the instant claims are directed to the likelihood of damages, environmental conditions and multipliers.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 26-28, 30-32, 34-36, 38-40, 42-44 and 46-48 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 25, 29, 33, 37, 41 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This is a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 25, 29, 33, 37, 41 and 45 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 33 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 25 and product Claim 41.
The claims recite the steps of:
applying a …model to historical telematics data generated during operation…by the respective driver user, to receive as output from the … model (i) a respective driver operational profile associated with and identifying each of the plurality of driver users, the operational profile including an operation factor related to a likelihood of damage during operation thereof, and (ii) a predesignated policy for the plurality of users including a coverage amount based in part upon the driver operational profiles of the plurality of users;
receiving … current vehicle telematics data for a trip taken using the vehicle;
applying the… model to the current vehicle telematics data to identify, from the plurality of driver users, a confirmed driver user for the trip;
using the driver operational profile of the confirmed driver user, the current vehicle telematics data, and environmental conditions under which the vehicle was operated during the trip, classify the trip as having below standard, standard, or above standard likelihood of damage;
generating a multiplier for the trip based upon the classification;
applying the multiplier to the current vehicle telematics data to generate weighted telematics data; and
retraining the … model using the weighted telematics data to update the driver operational profile for the confirmed driver user, such updating causing a corresponding adjustment in the coverage amount to an adjusted coverage amount.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claim as a whole recites the series of steps instructing how to evaluate telematics data to determine an insurance policy (analyze risk), which is a fundamental economic practice and thus falls within the abstract grouping of certain method of organizing human activity. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of how determine insurance risk of damage of a driver in a computer environment (machine learning on telematics data collected). The claimed computer components (a trained machine learning model, vehicle, telematics sensors) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing risk evaluation process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A prong 2, the claim describes how to generally “apply” the concept of how determine insurance risk of damage of a driver in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed separately and as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is ineligible.
The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Dependent claims 29, 37 and 45 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 25, 33 and 41 (analyze the data for example ). The dependent claims are abstract for the reasons presented above because there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered as a whole, individually and as an ordered combination. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Thus, the claims 25, 29, 33, 37, 41 and 45 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 25, 29, 33, 37, 41 and 45 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chehrazi et al disclose machine-learning driven recommendation of health and insurance plans.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Campen whose telephone number is (571)272-6740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-3pm.
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.
Kelly S. Campen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691