DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
The following is Office Action on the merits in response to the communication received on 9/16/25.
Claim status:
Amended claims: 1-18, 21, 22, 24, and 26
Canceled claims: 23
Added New claims: None
Pending claims: 1-22 and 24-26
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 1-22 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to statutory subject matter. Specifically, the invention of claims 1-22 and 24-26 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 19-21 and 24-26 are directed to an apparatus/system (claims 1, 21 and 26), a method (claims 19 and 24) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claims 20 and 25). Therefore on its face, each of claims 1, 19-21 and 24-26 is directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the 2019 PEG. However each of claims 1, 19-21 and 24-26 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, under Step 2A (Prong One and Prong Two) and Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, which is a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. 101, as detailed below. Using the language of independent claim 24 to illustrate the claim recites the limitations of, (i) controlling a user interface to receive a user input, wherein the user input is associated with at least one mobility means, among a plurality of mobility means, for which a user needs an insurance, the at least one mobility means among the plurality of mobility means includes a transportation device, and the at least one mobility means among the plurality of mobility means travels within a route, (ii) selecting the at least one mobility means among the plurality of mobility means based on the received user input via the user interface; (iii) controlling a communication, (iv) calculates an amount of an insurance premium based on a contract content of the insurance that compensates for a damage associated with the route that includes the selected at least one mobility means of the plurality of mobility means; (v) receiving the calculated amount of the insurance premium; and (vi) controlling the user interface to present the calculated amount of the insurance premium under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) covers methods of organizing human activity -- fundamental economic principles or practices, insurance but for the recitation of generic computers and generic computer components. (Independent claims 1, 19-21 and 25-26 recite similar limitations and the analysis is the same).
That is, other than reciting an information processing terminal, an information processing apparatus and a plurality of mobility means nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being directed to activity -- fundamental economic principles or practices, insurance. If a claim limitation under its BRI, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computers, then the limitations fall within the “methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, claim 24 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance 84 Fed.Reg 50 (“2019 PEG”).
This “methods of organizing human activity” is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A prong Two of the 2019 PEG. In particular the claim recites the additional elements of an information processing terminal, an information processing apparatus and a plurality of mobility means. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites an information processing terminal, an information processing apparatus and a plurality of mobility means.
The information processing terminal, information processing apparatus and plurality of mobility means are recited at a high-level or generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that, they amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea with a general computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the 2019 PEG independent claim 24 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using an information processing terminal, an information processing apparatus and a plurality of mobility means, controlling a user interface to receive a user input, wherein the user input is associated with at least one mobility means, among a plurality of mobility means, for which a user needs an insurance, the at least one mobility means among the plurality of mobility means includes a transportation device, and the at least one mobility means among the plurality of mobility means travels within a route, selecting the at least one mobility means among the plurality of mobility means based on the received user input via the user interface; controlling a communication, calculates an amount of an insurance premium based on a contract content of the insurance that compensates for a damage associated with the route that includes the selected at least one mobility means of the plurality of mobility means; receiving the calculated amount of the insurance premium; and controlling the user interface to present the calculated amount of the insurance premium, amounts to an instruction to apply the abstract idea with a general computer. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations individually. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed individually are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-18 and 22 merely further explain the abstract idea.
When viewed individually the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 1-22 and 24-26 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments overcome the 112 (b) Rejections,
therefore, the Rejection(s) are moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steinmann (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0181144).
With respect to claims 1 and 19-20:
Steinmann teaches:
An information processing apparatus comprising: a central processing unit (CPU) configured to control a communication with an information processing terminal (“Aircraft controllers 911, . . . , 914, like so called flight management systems (FMS), are a fundamental component of a modern airliner's avionics. FMSs typically comprises a specialized computer system that automates a wide variety of in-flight tasks, A primary function is in-flight management of the flight plan. Using various sensors (such as GPS (Global Positioning System) and INS (Inertial Navigation System) often backed up by radio navigation) to determine the aircraft's position, the EMS can guide the aircraft along the flight plan. From the cockpit, the EMS is normally controlled through a Control Display Unit (CDU). The EMS sends the flight plan for display to the Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS), Navigation Display (ND), or Multifunction Display (MFD). However, the aircraft controllers 911, . . . , 914, according to the present invention may comprise all kinds of aircraft avionics, such as communication systems, navigation systems, monitoring systems, aircraft flight-control systems, collision-avoidance system, black box data systems, weather systems and/or aircraft management systems, i.e., generally avionics used as electronic systems on aircraft, artificial satellites, and spacecraft. Thus, aircraft controllers 911, . . . , 914 comprise communications, navigation, electronic display and management of multiple systems, and all varieties of systems that are fitted to aircraft to perform individual functions. These can be as simple as a control of a searchlight for a police helicopter or as complicated as the tactical system for an airborne early warning platform. The term aircraft controllers 911, . . . , 914, as used in the present invention, refers to all kinds of avionics as a hybrid of the words aviation and electronics” Steinmann Pgh. [0036]);
a route setting unit configured to determine a first route proposal associated with a first route for a user based on a service, wherein the user selects the service, the user selects an insurance for at least a part of the service (“For example, for the prediction of the flight trajectories, the system can dynamically generate a 3D grid network table representing digitized airspace, where each grid point is a location of weather measure parameters, and generates cubes around these grid points, so the entire airspace is represented by a dynamically generated set of cubes, wherein each cube is defined by its centroid, the original grid point, and associated weather measuring parameters remaining homogeneous within the generated cube during a predefined period of time. Further, the core engine can e.g. align generated raw trajectories to said set of cube centroids as fixed 3D positions independent of trajectory data, wherein form trajectories are generated as 4D joint cubes, and wherein each cube is a segment that is associated with not only spatio-temporal attributes and with the weather measuring parameters, The system can e.g. further comprise machine learning means, wherein the machine learning means are applied and trained based on predefined inference structures derived from historical measure data by applying a stochastic structure for predicting and generating the flight trajectories taking environmental uncertainties into account” (Steinmann Pgh. [0014]) and “….. in that for each triggered occurrence of a time delay associated with a flight or flight trajectory, a corresponding trigger-flag is set by means of the core engine for all risk-exposed units assignable to that flight, and a parametric transfer of payments is allocated to each trigger-flag, wherein said assignment of the parametric transfer of payments to the corresponding trigger-flag is automatically activated by means of the system for a dynamically scalable loss covering of the risk-exposed unit, and wherein a loss associated with the triggered time delay is distinctly covered by the system based on the respective trigger-flag and based on the received and stored payment parameters from the pooled risk-exposed units by the parametric payment transfer from the system to the corresponding risk-exposed units by means of an automated activated damage recovering system or payment-transfer modules operated or steered by a generated output signal of a failure deployment device of the system” Steinmann Pgh. [0014]);
an insurance money calculator configured to: determine a damage occurred on the first route based on a delay associated with each mobility means of a plurality of mobility means associated with the first route, wherein the insurance for the part of the service is associated with at least one mobility means of the plurality of mobility means, and each mobility means of the plurality of mobility means includes at least one transportation device (“in that for each triggered occurrence of a time delay associated with a flight or flight trajectory, a corresponding trigger-flag is set by means of the core engine for all risk-exposed units assignable to that flight, and a parametric transfer of payments is allocated to each trigger-flag, wherein said assignment of the parametric transfer of payments to the corresponding trigger-flag is automatically activated by means of the system for a dynamically scalable loss covering of the risk-exposed unit, and wherein a loss associated with the triggered time delay is distinctly covered by the system based on the respective trigger-flag and based on the received and stored payment parameters from the pooled risk-exposed units by the parametric payment transfer from the system to the corresponding risk-exposed units by means of an automated activated damage recovering system or payment-transfer modules operated or steered by a generated output signal of a failure deployment device of the system” (Steinmann Pgh. [0014]) and “The system 1 technically transfers, captures and handles risks as a consequence of flight-delay events by providing loss coverage for the transported risk-exposed units 41, . . . , 43 based on pooled resources and risks, The risk-exposed units 41, . . . , 43 can be passengers or goods, transported by a certain flight and aircraft.” Steinmann Pgh. [0034]). (The Examiner interprets the goods transported by the risk-exposed units 41 as at least one transportation device.); and
calculate an amount of insurance premium based a contract content of the insurance and the damage occurred on the first route, wherein the contract content of the insurance compensates for the damage (“The system 1 technically transfers, captures and handles risks as a consequence of flight-delay events by providing loss coverage for the transported risk-exposed units 41, . . . , 43 based on pooled resources and risks, (The Examiner interprets the loss coverage as insurance and the risk-exposed units 41 as a plurality of mobility means) The risk-exposed units 41, . . . , 43 can be passengers or goods, transported by a certain flight and aircraft. The underlying reasons leading to the flight delay are not relevant for the operation of the present system, i.e., they can comprise, inter alia, measurable based on atmospheric conditions (example: volcanic ash), meteorological conditions (example: flood, earthquake, storm, wind, rain), heavy air traffic, technical problems of the aircraft or airport systems, etc.)” (Steinmann Pgh. [0034]) and “The flight trajectory-borne automated delay risk-transfer system 1 provides risk sharing of a variable number of risk-exposed units 41, . . . , 43 by pooling resources of the risk-exposed units 41, . . . , 43 and by providing a self-sufficient risk-transfer system 1 based on the pooled resources 11 for the risk-exposed units 41, . . . , 43 by means of a resource-pooling system 11 associated with the insurance system 1. The risk-exposed units 41, . . . , 43 are connected to the system 1 by means of a plurality of payment-transfer modules 7 configured to receive and store payments from the risk-exposed units 41, . . . , 43 for the pooling of their risks and resources 111. Thus, the automated flight-delay insurance system 1 provides an automated transfer of risk exposure associated with the units 41, . . . , 43 by its technical means and realization” Steinmann Pgh. [0035]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, Steinmann (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0181144), in view of Slusar (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0089710).
With respect to claim 2:
Steinmann does not teach but Slusar teaches:
wherein the insurance money calculator is further configured to determine the damage based on an accident of an insured person and the insured person is one of the user or a person different from the user (“At step 730, the risk map generation system 302 may use the updated risk map to complete insurance tasks. For example, the updated risk map may be used to adjust a user's insurance premium, modify a user's insurance coverage, file a claim, pay a claim, report or record an accident, offer different rates for insurance based on routes traveled, etc.” Slusar [0075]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified Steinmann’s teachings to incorporate Slusar’s teachings, in order “to alert drivers to possible risks while driving” Slusar Abstract.
With respect to claim 3:
Steinmann does not teach but Slusar teaches:
wherein the route setting unit is further configured to change the first route based on the delay of each mobility means of the plurality of mobility means within the first route (“In some embodiments, a risk map generation system 302 may create different risk maps for different devices or different users. For example, one risk map may be generated for a user of a vehicle 308 while a different risk map may be generated for a different user of another vehicle. The differences in the risk maps may depend on the past driving behavior of the different users (e.g., drivers) and may take into account that different things may pose different risks to different users. Although risk maps are often described herein as being displayed to drivers of a vehicle, it should be understood that risk maps may be generated for and displayed to pedestrians, joggers, runners, bike riders, motorcyclists, and the like” (Slusar Pgh. [0045]) and “FIG. 4 illustrates a user interface 400. The user interface 400 may be displayed to a user and may illustrate aspects of a risk map. The user interface 400 may comprise images or figures. For example, the user interface 400 may include images of a pedestrian 402, an oil slick 404, a pothole 406, a vehicle(s) 408, and/or an animal 410. In some aspects, FIGS. 402, 404, 406, 408, and 410 may be point cloud images. In some instances, the interface 400 may be a point cloud interface. In some aspects, these images may indicate a risk of the road segment or route being travel by a vehicle(s) 408” (Slusar Pgh. [0056]) and “In some embodiments, the updated risk map may determine and provide alternative routes for a user to travel that contain less risk (e.g. a lower risk value may be associated with the alternative route)” (Slusar Pgh. [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified Steinmann’s teachings to incorporate Slusar’s teachings, in order “to alert drivers to possible risks while driving” Slusar Abstract.
With respect to claim 4:
Steinmann does not teach but Slusar teaches:
wherein the route setting unit is further configured to change the first route to a second route, and the plurality of mobility means arrives at a destination at a target time via the second route (“In some embodiments, a risk map generation system 302 may create different risk maps for different devices or different users. For example, one risk map may be generated for a user of a vehicle 308 while a different risk map may be generated for a different user of another vehicle. The differences in the risk maps may depend on the past driving behavior of the different users (e.g., drivers) and may take into account that different things may pose different risks to different users. Although risk maps are often described herein as being displayed to drivers of a vehicle, it should be understood that risk maps may be generated for and displayed to pedestrians, joggers, runners, bike riders, motorcyclists, and the like” (Slusar Pgh. [0045]) and “FIG. 4 illustrates a user interface 400. The user interface 400 may be displayed to a user and may illustrate aspects of a risk map. The user interface 400 may comprise images or figures. For example, the user interface 400 may include images of a pedestrian 402, an oil slick 404, a pothole 406, a vehicle(s) 408, and/or an animal 410. In some aspects, FIGS. 402, 404, 406, 408, and 410 may be point cloud images. In some instances, the interface 400 may be a point cloud interface. In some aspects, these images may indicate a risk of the road segment or route being travel by a vehicle(s) 408” (Slusar Pgh. [0056]) and “At step 730, the risk map generation system 302 may use the updated risk map to complete insurance tasks. For example, the updated risk map may be used to adjust a user's insurance premium, modify a user's insurance coverage, file a claim, pay a claim, report or record an accident, offer different rates for insurance based on routes traveled, etc. In some aspects, a risk map generation system 302 may use the updated risk map to offer a user a new or alternative route for traveling to their destination. For example, the risk map generation system 302 may offer different routes based on risk values to the user in order for the user to reach their destination. In some embodiments, a risk map generation system 302 may provide the updated risk map to notify pedestrians, motorcyclist, cyclist, and the like. In some examples, a risk map generation system 302 may use the updated risk map to notify emergency responders of potential risks on particular roads. The risk map generation system 302 may be able to provide first responders with a plurality of possible routes to a predetermined destination and rank them based on risk value, time, distance, traffic, and other safety and travel factors” Slusar [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified Steinmann’s teachings to incorporate Slusar’s teachings, in order “to alert drivers to possible risks while driving” Slusar Abstract.
With respect to claim 5:
Steinmann does not teach but Slusar teaches:
wherein the route setting unit is further configured to one of : cancel the at least one mobility means of the plurality of mobility means within the first route before the first route is changed. or change an arrangement of the plurality of mobility means within the first route after the first route is changed (“In some aspects, a risk map generation system 302 may use the updated risk map to offer a user a new or alternative route for traveling to their destination. For example, the risk map generation system 302 may offer different routes based on risk values to the user in order for the user to reach their destination. In some embodiments, a risk map generation system 302 may provide the updated risk map to notify pedestrians, motorcyclist, cyclist, and the like. In some examples, a risk map generation system 302 may use the updated risk map to notify emergency responders of potential risks on particular roads. The risk map generation system 302 may be able to provide first responders with a plurality of possible routes to a predetermined destination and rank them based on risk value, time, distance, traffic, and other safety and travel factors” Slusar [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified Steinmann’s teachings to incorporate Slusar’s teachings, in order “to alert drivers to possible risks while driving” Slusar Abstract.
With respect to claim 6:
Steinmann does not teach but Slusar teaches:
wherein the insurance money calculator is further configured to determine the damage based on the change of the first route (“At step 730, the risk map generation system 302 may use the updated risk map to complete insurance tasks. For example, the updated risk map may be used to adjust a user's insurance premium, modify a user's insurance coverage, file a claim, pay a claim, report or record an accident, offer different rates for insurance based on routes traveled, etc. In some aspects, a risk map generation system 302 may use the updated risk map to offer a user a new or alternative route for traveling to their destination. For example, the risk map generation system 302 may offer different routes based on risk values to the user in order for the user to reach their destination” Slusar [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified Steinmann’s teachings to incorporate Slusar’s teachings, in order “to alert drivers to possible risks while driving” Slusar Abstract.
With respect to claim 11:
Steinmann does not teach but Slusar teaches:
wherein the insurance money calculator is further configured to set a rate of compensation for the damage based on behavior history data associated with a behavior of the insured person, and the insured person travels based on the first route (“In some aspects, users may be assigned a consumption score based on the updated risk maps. A consumption score may be a value correlated to a user's exposure to risk while operating a vehicle. In some instances, the updated risk map may be used to update the consumption score. In some examples, the consumption score may be affected by the route the user chooses to take. In some aspects, the consumption score may be used to characterize a user. For example, a user with a low consumption score, meaning they choose to travel safer routes, may be less likely to commit fraud. On the other hand, a user with a high consumption score, meaning they choose to travel more hazardous routes, may be more likely to commit fraud. In another example, the consumption score may be able to be used in place of a credit score” (Slusar [0076]) and “At step 730, the risk map generation system 302 may use the updated risk map to complete insurance tasks. For example, the updated risk map may be used to adjust a user's insurance premium, modify a user's insurance coverage, file a claim, pay a claim, report or record an accident, offer different rates for insurance based on routes traveled, etc. In some aspects, a risk map generation system 302 may use the updated risk map to offer a user a new or alternative route for traveling to their destination. For example, the risk map generation system 302 may offer different routes based on risk values to the user in order for the user to reach their destination” Slusar [0075]). (The Examiner interprets payment of a claim, a claim suggesting an amount of damage as ““rate of compensation for actual damage”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified Steinmann’s teachings to incorporate Slusar’s teachings, in order “to alert drivers to possible risks while driving” Slusar Abstract.
Claims 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, Steinmann (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0181144), in view of Slusar (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0089710) and Collins (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0207497).
With respect to claim 12:
Steinmann does not teach but Collins teaches:
wherein the insurance money calculator is further configured to: determine a behavior of the insured person based on the behavior history data: and set the rate of the compensation for the damage based on at least one of a reliability of the behavior history data or the behavior of the insured person (“According to some embodiments, an insurance company may offer tiered discounts and/or premium rate levels for customers who commit to (and/or who actually do) maintain certain risk zone parameters within predetermined thresholds. In the case of travel, for example, trips planned and/or taken (e.g., monitored via GPS in an in-car navigational device and/or via the customer's mobile communications device) may be tallied with respect to various risk zone ratings. Overall ratings in certain time periods (e.g., exposure to risk per month) and/or a weighted risk zone aggregate (e.g., frequency of experienced risk levels) may, in some embodiments, be determined for individual customers. In the case that the tracked metrics fall within predetermined thresholds (e.g., an average experienced risk level of less than seventy-five (75) in any given month) the customer may qualify for a reduced premium, discount, and/or other reward (e.g., frequent flyer miles, reward points, and/or prizes; e.g., ten percent (10%) off monthly premium). In some embodiments, the user may obtain a certain number of points for certain risk zone levels and receive a benefit if the user stays below (or above) a threshold number of points (over a set period of time). In some embodiments, the user may obtain benefits if user stays below (or above) a threshold percentage of trips having a certain risk zone level (over a set period of time) Collins [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified
Steinmann’s teachings to incorporate Collins’ teachings, in order “to define, manage, output, and/or utilize risk zone-based navigational routing” Collins Abstract.
With respect to claim 13:
Steinmann does not teach but Collins teaches:
wherein the insurance money calculator is further configured to: determine at least one of a path travelled by the insured person, a place at which the insured person stayed, a time period for which the insured person stayed at the place, or the at least one mobility means of the plurality of mobility means used by the insured person; and set the rate of the compensation for the damage based on the determined at least one of the path, the place, the time period, or the determined at least one mobility means (“According to some embodiments, an insurance company may offer tiered discounts and/or premium rate levels for customers who commit to (and/or who actually do) maintain certain risk zone parameters within predetermined thresholds. In the case of travel, for example, trips planned and/or taken (e.g., monitored via GPS in an in-car navigational device and/or via the customer's mobile communications device) may be tallied with respect to various risk zone ratings. Overall ratings in certain time periods (e.g., exposure to risk per month) and/or a weighted risk zone aggregate (e.g., frequency of experienced risk levels) may, in some embodiments, be determined for individual customers. In the case that the tracked metrics fall within predetermined thresholds (e.g., an average experienced risk level of less than seventy-five (75) in any given month) the customer may qualify for a reduced premium, discount, and/or other reward (e.g., frequent flyer miles, reward points, and/or prizes; e.g., ten percent (10%) off monthly premium). In some embodiments, the user may obtain a certain number of points for certain risk zone levels and receive a benefit if the user stays below (or above) a threshold number of points (over a set period of time). In some embodiments, the user may obtain benefits if user stays below (or above) a threshold percentage of trips having a certain risk zone level (over a set period of time)” Collins [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified
Steinmann’s teachings to incorporate Collins’ teachings, in order “to define, manage, output, and/or utilize risk zone-based navigational routing” Collins Abstract.
With respect to claim 14:
Steinmann does not teach but Collins teaches:
wherein the CPU is further configured to control reception of the behavior history data from the information processing terminal associated with the insured person (“According to some embodiments, an insurance company may offer tiered discounts and/or premium rate levels for customers who commit to (and/or who actually do) maintain certain risk zone parameters within predetermined thresholds. In the case of travel, for example, trips planned and/or taken (e.g., monitored via GPS in an in-car navigational device and/or via the customer's mobile communications device) may be tallied with respect to various risk zone ratings” Collins [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified
Steinmann’s teachings to incorporate Collins’ teachings, in order “to define, manage, output, and/or utilize risk zone-based navigational routing” Collins Abstract.
Claims 7-8, 15-18, 21-22 and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, Steinmann (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0181144), in view of Collins (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0207497).
With respect to claim 7:
Steinmann does not teach but Collins teaches:
further comprising a schedule setting unit configured to change a schedule of the insured person based on the delay of each mobility means of the plurality of mobility means within the first route (“According to some embodiments, the prioritization device 120 d may comprise a device that makes and/or facilitates prioritization decisions based on risk zone data. The order of performing errands or tasks may be prioritized based on risk associated with the objects to be visited (e.g., time-based risk), for example, providing a suggestion that a customer “go to the cleaners first”, “then do grocery shopping”, because going to the grocery store at the current time of day is more likely to result in a slip or fall (compared to the suggested time—e.g., after having visited the cleaners first), or which rides to go on (and/or when) at an amusement park (e.g., before noon because that is when less injuries occur). In some embodiments, overall and/or “blended” risk zones may be utilized for navigation and/or prioritization. While a first road may be more risky (in general and/or at the current time) than a second road, for example, the first road may allow a person to arrive at a dry cleaners during a time of less risk at the drycleaners, while the second and less risky road would not. Thus, the overall risk of a route, itinerary, and/or schedule may be determined and/or managed (e.g., to reduce expected and/or relative risk). Similarly, while a particular time can be established at which an amusement park ride will be less risky (e.g., fewer accidents per unit time than other times of the day, week, month, etc.), some embodiments may combine items on an itinerary, such as going on the ride and having lunch, to determine that the ride should be visited at a different (and perhaps even riskier) time, e.g., to avoid and/or reduce risk at a selected lunch establishment (for which risk may, for example, be a more difficult and/or serious affair than a “risky” ride)” Collins [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified
Steinmann’s teachings to incorporate Collins’ teachings, in order “to define, manage, output, and/or utilize risk zone-based navigational routing” Collins Abstract.
With respect to claim 8:
Steinmann does not teach but Collins teaches:
wherein the schedule setting unit is further configured to change least one of the service or an accommodation facility to be used by the insured person (“According to some embodiments, the prioritization device 120 d may comprise a device that makes and/or facilitates prioritization decisions based on risk zone data. The order of performing errands or tasks may be prioritized based on risk associated with the objects to be visited (e.g., time-based risk), for example, providing a suggestion that a customer “go to the cleaners first”, “then do grocery shopping”, because going to the grocery store at the current time of day is more likely to result in a slip or fall (compared to the suggested time—e.g., after having visited the cleaners first), or which rides to go on (and/or when) at an amusement park (e.g., before noon because that is when less injuries occur). In some embodiments, overall and/or “blended” risk zones may be utilized for navigation and/or prioritization. While a first road may be more risky (in general and/or at the current time) than a second road, for example, the first road may allow a person to arrive at a dry cleaners during a time of less risk at the drycleaners, while the second and less risky road would not. Thus, the overall risk of a route, itinerary, and/or schedule may be determined and/or managed (e.g., to reduce expected and/or relative risk). Similarly, while a particular time can be established at which an amusement park ride will be less risky (e.g., fewer accidents per unit time than other times of the day, week, month, etc.), some embodiments may combine items on an itinerary, such as going on the ride and having lunch, to determine that the ride should be visited at a different (and perhaps even riskier) time, e.g., to avoid and/or reduce risk at a selected lunch establishment (for which risk may, for example, be a more difficult and/or serious affair than a “risky” ride)” Collins [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified
Steinmann’s teachings to incorporate Collins’ teachings, in order “to define, manage, output, and/or utilize risk zone-based navigational routing” Collins Abstract.
With respect to claim 15:
Steinmann does not teach but Collins teaches:
further comprising an insurance designer configured to design the insurance that corresponds to the first route (“In some embodiments, the process 200 may also or alternatively comprise one or more actions associated with insurance underwriting 220. Insurance underwriting 220 may generally comprise any type, variety, and/or configuration of underwriting process and/or functionality that is or becomes known or practicable. Insurance underwriting 220 may comprise, for example, simply consulting a pre-existing rule, criteria, and/or threshold to determine if an insurance product may be offered, underwritten and/or issued to customers, based on any relevant risk zone data 202 a-n. One example of an insurance underwriting 220 process may comprise one or more of risk assessment 230 and/or premium calculation 240 (e.g., as shown in FIG. 2). In some embodiments, while both the risk assessment 230 and the premium calculation 240 are depicted as being part of an exemplary insurance underwriting 220 procedure, either or both of the risk assessment 230 and the premium calculation 240 may alternatively be part of a different process and/or different type of process (and/or may not be included in the process 200, as is or becomes practicable and/or desirable)” (Collins [0036]) and “The risk zone data 202 a-n and/or a result of the risk zone processing 210 may, for example, be determined and utilized to conduct risk assessment 230 for any of a variety of purposes. In some embodiments, e.g., the risk assessment 230 may be conducted as part of a rating process for determining how to structure an insurance product and/or offering. A “rating engine” utilized in an insurance underwriting process may, for example, retrieve a risk zone metric (e.g., provided as a result of the risk zone processing 210) for input into a calculation (and/or series of calculations and/or a mathematical model) to determine a level of risk or the amount of risky behavior likely to be associated with a particular object and/or area” Collins [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified
Steinmann’s teachings to incorporate Collins’ teachings, in order “to define, manage, output, and/or utilize risk zone-based navigational routing” Collins Abstract.
With respect to claim 16:
Steinmann teaches:
wherein the user selects the at least one mobility means among the plurality of mobility means within the first route, and the insurance designer is further configured to apply the insurance to the selected at least one mobility means among the plurality of mobility means within the first route (“The payment-transfer modules 7 or an insurance policy data management module of the flight trajectories-borne dynamic system 1 can for example be connected with an external sales system 4 via a dedicated port, and if a flight ticket and a flight delay insurance policy are sold, the external sales system 4 transmits insurance policy data to the payment-transfer modules 7 or the insurance policy data management module to perform the risk transfer from the risk-exposed unit 41, . . . , 43 to the dynamically adapted and operated system 1” Steinmann Pgh. [0045]).
With respect to claim 17:
Steinmann does not teach but Collins teaches:
wherein the CPU is further configured to: control a user interface of the information processing terminal; and receive, via the user interface, the selection of the at least one mobility means by the user (“In some embodiments, the system 300 may include the risk zone portal device 380 that may, for example, be communicatively coupled to receive risk zone data and/or metrics from the risk zone data processing device 310 and/or communicatively coupled to provide such data and/or metrics to one or more of the subscriber device 392 and the customer device 394. According to some embodiments, the risk zone portal device 380 may comprise a server and/or web server configured to function as a “front end” and/or to provide a Graphical User Interface (GUI) via which subscribers and/or customers may access and/or purchase risk zone data and/or metrics. The risk zone portal device 380 may comprise, for example, an e-commerce “store front” such as may be implemented utilizing StoreFront.net™ provided by StoreFront® sCommerce of Olathe (Kansas City metropolitan area), KS, and/or may be sold and/or provided as an application for a cellular telephone or PDA, such as an Apple® iPhone® application. In such a manner, customers and/or subscribers may access and/or be provided with risk zone data for purposes such as for structuring insurance policy terms and/or premiums and/or for accessing risk zone data for informative and/or decision-making purposes (such as what roads to avoid on the way home from work, which restaurants or stores are currently or expected to soon be associated with varying levels of risk, etc.)” Collins [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified Steinmann’s teachings to incorporate Collins’ teachings, in order “to define, manage, output, and/or utilize risk zone-based navigational routing” Collins Abstract.
With respect to claim 18:
Steinmann teaches:
wherein the insurance designer is further configured to design the insurance (“The payment-transfer modules 7 or an insurance policy data management module of the flight trajectories-borne dynamic system 1 can for example be connected with an external sales system 4 via a dedicated port, and if a flight ticket and a flight delay insurance policy are sold, the external sales system 4 transmits insurance policy data to the payment-transfer modules 7 or the insurance policy data management module to perform the risk transfer from the risk-exposed unit 41, . . . , 43 to the dynamically adapted and operated system 1. The payment-transfer module 7 of the system 1 can for example be connected with a third-party payment platform through a dedicated port for transmitting payment parameters, at least comprising information of a transfer-out account, information of a transfer-in account, a transfer amount, and a verification key, to the third-party payment platform, and receiving the processing result state from the third--party payment platform. The parametric payment transfer from the system 1 to the corresponding risk-exposed units 41, . . . , 43 can for example be done by electronic payment transfer to a transfer-out account associated with a mobile telephone.” Steinmann Pgh. [0045]).
With respect to claims 21 and 25:
Steinmann teaches:
wherein the at least one mobility means among the plurality of mobility means includes a transportation device, and the at least one mobility means among the plurality of mobility means travels within a route; and a central processing unit (CPU) configured to: {…..} receive the user input; select the at least one mobility means among the plurality of mobility means based on the received user input {…..} (“Aircraft controllers 911, . . . , 914, like so called flight management systems (FMS), are a fundamental component of a modern airliner's avionics. FMSs typically comprises a specialized computer system that automates a wide variety of in-flight tasks, A primary function is in-flight management of the flight plan. Using various sensors (such as GPS (Global Positioning System) and INS (Inertial Navigation System) often backed up by radio navigation) to determine the aircraft's position, the EMS can guide the aircraft along the flight plan. From the cockpit, the EMS is normally controlled through a Control Display Unit (CDU). The EMS sends the flight plan for display to the Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS), Navigation Display (ND), or Multifunction Display (MFD). However, the aircraft controllers 911, . . . , 914, according to the present invention may comprise all kinds of aircraft avionics, such as communication systems, navigation systems, monitoring systems, aircraft flight-control systems, collision-avoidance system, black box data systems, weather systems and/or aircraft management systems, i.e., generally avionics used as electronic systems on aircraft, artificial satellites, and spacecraft. Thus, aircraft controllers 911, . . . , 914 comprise communications, navigation, electronic display and management of multiple systems, and all varieties of systems that are fitted to aircraft to perform individual functions. These can be as simple as a control of a searchlight for a police helicopter or as complicated as the tactical system for an airborne early warning platform. The term aircraft controllers 911, . . . , 914, as used in the present invention, refers to all kinds of avionics as a hybrid of the words aviation and electronics” (Steinmann Pgh. [0036]) and “For example, for the prediction of the flight trajectories, the system can dynamically generate a 3D grid network table representing digitized airspace, where each grid point is a location of weather measure parameters, and generates cubes around these grid points, so the entire airspace is represented by a dynamically generated set of cubes, wherein each cube is defined by its centroid, the original grid point, and associated weather measuring parameters remaining homogeneous within the generated cube during a predefined period of time. Further, the core engine can e.g. align generated raw trajectories to said set of cube centroids as fixed 3D positions independent of trajectory data, wherein form trajectories are generated as 4D joint cubes, and wherein each cube is a segment that is associated with not only spatio-temporal attributes and with the weather measuring parameters, The system can e.g. further comprise machine learning means, wherein the machine learning means are applied and trained based on predefined inference structures derived from historical measure data by applying a stochastic structure for predicting and generating the flight trajectories taking environmental uncertainties into account” (Steinmann Pgh. [0014]) and “….. in that for each triggered occurrence of a time delay associated with a flight or flight trajectory, a corresponding trigger-flag is set by means of the core engine for all risk-exposed units assignable to that flight, and a parametric transfer of payments is allocated to each trigger-flag, wherein said assignment of the parametric transfer of payments to the corresponding trigger-flag is automatically activated by means of the system for a dynamically scalable loss covering of the risk-exposed unit, and wherein a loss associated with the triggered time delay is distinctly covered by the system based on the respective trigger-flag and based on the received and stored payment parameters from the pooled risk-exposed units by the parametric payment transfer from the system to the corresponding risk-exposed units by means of an automated activated damage recoverin