DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Applicants’ election of Group I corresponding to claims 1-1 1 is acknowledged by the Examiner. This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed September 26, 2025 in which claims 1-1 1 are pending in the application. Double Patenting 2 . 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. 3 . Claims 1- 3 and 5- 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 3 and 5-11 of U.S. Patent No. 117 2 0 9 7 0 B 2 . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the 117 2 0 9 7 0 B 2 patent each recite the following: automatically receiving, by a server, electronic data associated with a driver, from two or more electronic sources; automatically computing, by the server, a policy score, for the driver, by comparing the received data to an electronic driver policy; providing, by the server, the policy score in a user interface; in the user interface, providing a user interface device, which when selected causes the server to monitor changes to the electronic data associated with the driver; receiving a change in the electronic data at the server; and in response to the change, automatically sending an alert to a third party, in temporal proximity to the change, indicating the change. Regarding claim 1, the language in this claim can be found within claim 1 of U.S. Patent 11,7 2 0, 9 7 0 . Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 11,7 2 0, 9 7 0 teaches limitations omitted from claim 1 of the instant application. The differences between claim 1 of the reference patent and claim 1 of the application, is that claim 1 of the patent provides additional details such as recomputing the policy score and comparing the recomputed policy score to a threshold and in response to the recomputed policy score crossing the threshold, the claim specifies how sending an alert signal prevents the driver from unlocking, using a near field communication device, either a vehicle, used by the driver, or a physical access gate. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art just before the effective date of the claimed invention to sending an alert based on the recomputed policy score to prevent the driver from unlocking a vehicle or a physical access gate, thus prohibiting the driver from accessing vehicle stored in some facility. Dependent claims 2 - 3 and 5-11 of the instant application are obvious variants of dependent claims 2 -3 and 5-11 of the parent case respectively. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 4 . The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites, “… automatically computing, by the server, a policy score, for the driver, by comparing the received data to an electronic driver policy .” T he limitation “the received data ” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate clarification is required. Claim 8 recites , “ … wherein the two or more sources are monitored to find the change in the data. ” The limitations, “the two or more sources” and “the data” lack antecedent basis . Appropriate clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: 5 . 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 1-1 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims 1- 11 are directed to a method which are one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES). The claim 1 recites : a utomatically receiving, by a server , electronic data associated with a driver, from two or more electronic sources; automatically computing, by the server , a policy score, for the driver, by comparing the received data to an electronic driver policy; providing, by the server , the policy score in a user interface ; in the user interface , providing a user interface device , which when selected causes the server to monitor changes to the electronic data associated with the driver; receiving a change in the electronic data at the server ; and in response to the change, automatically sending an alert to a third party, in temporal proximity to the change, indicating the change . . These limitations (with the exception of italicized portions), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, when considered collectively as an ordered combination, is a process that covers Certain methods of organizing human activity such as commercial or legal interactions . Providing a policy score associated with a driver is a commercial interaction. The claim also recites the server, a user interface , and a user interface device which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, the server, a user interface , and a user interface device , nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea ( Step 2A: Prong 1: YES ). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the server, a user interface , and a user interface device result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements of the server, a user interface , and a user interface device to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 6-10 , [0 121 ]). Hence, the additional elements in the claim are generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements of the server, a user interface , and a user interface device are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea ( Step 2A - Prong 2: NO ). The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the server, a user interface , and a user interface device are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible ( Step 2B: NO ). Dependent claims 2- 11 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 7 recite s new additional element that is not present in independent claim 1 . Claim 7 recite s the additional element of a second user interface . A second user interface , recited in the claims, is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination. Viewing the claim limitations as a combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as a combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-1 1 are ineligible. Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102 6 . 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. 7 . Claims 1-2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tobey et al., U.S. Patent Number ( 6 , 714 , 894 B1 ). Regarding Claim 1, Tobey teaches a method comprising : automatically receiving, by a server, electronic data associated with a driver, from two or more electronic sources (See at least Column 4, lines 54-60, Column 9, line 51 to Column 10, line 15, “ By having systems and methods that automatically collect and analyze driver behavior and leverage driving safety information, driving safety may be better promoted and realized. ”); automatically computing, by the server, a policy score, for the driver, by comparing the received data to an electronic driver policy (See at least Column 11 , lines 28-44, Column 21, lines 32-36, “ the business rules would determine the points assigned for the various moving violations irrespective of the points assigned by the governing agencies and assign risk levels for various point totals. ” Examiner interprets “risk level” as disclosed in Tobey embodies “policy score” as claimed. ); providing, by the server, the policy score in a user interface (See at least Col 14, line 52, Col 15, Lines 9-22, Fig. 6B shows a risk level (i.e., a policy score) for a driver in an administrator (i.e., user) interface.) ; in the user interface , providing a user interface device, which when selected causes the server to monitor changes to the electronic data associated with the driver ; receiving a change in the electronic data at the server (See at least Col 10, lines 16-30, Col 13, line 57 to Col 14, line 10, “ One of the monitored drivers may engage in a traffic violation (e.g. running a red light). The traffic violation information (received from department of transportation, a designated reporting agency, or third party vendor of driver/vehicle event data) acts as input to driving safety information system 300 as event data. The event data is processed to retrieve information used in subsequent processing, such as, the nature of the event and the driver/vehicle information. Using this information, the driver/vehicle record is retrieved and processed with the event data according to pre-defined business rules . Applying the rules, the driver/vehicle record is updated and/or modified and is prepared for storage ”) ; in response to the change, automatically sending an alert to a third party, in temporal proximity to the change, indicating the change (See at least Col 14, lines 16-26, “ When performing analysis, driving safety information system 300 processes the driver profile information to generate reports for distribution to participating administrators through the driver interface area. Driving safety information system 300 is also adaptable s o as to communicate s uch information through other communication means including but not limited to e-mail, pager notification, instant messaging, short message s ervices, or other equivalent and available electronic communication means. ” P rocess ing the driver profile information to generate reports and communicat ing s uch information can be interpreted as automatically sending an alert to a third party, indicating the change ). Regarding Claim 2, Tobey further teaches, wherein at least one source is driver motor vehicle records (See at least Col 12, lines 4-11, “ Event data may be compiled from a variety of s ources including but not limited to State department of transportation agencies, municipalities, third party vendors of driver ”). Regarding Claim 4, Tobey further teaches, wherein the policy score is compared to a threshold (See at least Col 11, lines 28-44, Col 21, lines 32-36, “setting said risk levels at predetermined point levels” as disclosed in Tobey embodies “policy score is compared to a threshold” as claimed ) . Regarding Claim 5, Tobey further teaches, wherein based on the comparison, a visual indicator is provided in the user interface to indicate whether the driver is in compliance with the driver policy (See at least Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Fig. 5A shows a “Driver Risk Level Summary” and Fig. 5B shows “4 incomplete assignments” of assigned Educational Activity with a “view List” option to see individual drivers ) . Regarding Claim 6, Tobey further teaches, wherein the policy score for the driver is consolidated with at least one other policy score from a second driver into consolidate data (See at least Col 16, lines 48-58, Col 18, lines 35-5 8, “ FIG. 7T shows the processing performed to execute a function that determines drivers' and/or vehicles' current risk levels and total safety points aggregated over a predetermined period of tim e. In addition this function is capable of calculating cumulative safety point totals, average safety point totals, and fleets' average point total. In operation, custom tag 720 cooperates with loss table 721 , loss description table 743 , event table 724 , and event description table 744 to date sort events through date filter 710 a . These events are then assigned risk levels from risk levels table 702 a . The risk levels are then sorted by best/worst sort 704 a to provide a list of events and risk levels according to date in some predefined order .”). Regarding Claim 7, Tobey further teaches, wherein the consolidated data is displayed in a second user interface to show status of at least two drivers (See at least Fig. 5A, Fig. 5A shows a “Driver Risk Level Summary” for multiple drivers at Risk level 1, 2 or 3). Regarding Claim 8, Tobey further teaches, wherein the two or more sources are monitored to find the change in the data (See at least Col 10, lines 16-30, Col 13, line 57 to Col 14, line 10 , “ One of the monitored drivers may engage in a traffic violation (e.g. running a red light). The traffic violation information (received from department of transportation, a designated reporting agency, or third party vendor of driver/vehicle event data) acts as input to driving safety information system 300 as event data. The event data is processed to retrieve information used in subsequent processing, such as, the nature of the event and the driver/vehicle information. Using this information, the driver/vehicle record is retrieved and processed with the event data according to pre-defined business rules. Applying the rules, the driver/vehicle record is updated and/or modified and is prepared for storage” ). Regarding Claim 9, Tobey further teaches, wherein the policy score is updated based on the change found in at least one of the two or more sources (See at least Fig. 5A, Fig. 5A shows two “Risk Level Changes” within the last week: “1 driver to Risk Level 2 and 1 driver to Risk Level 3”.) Regarding Claim 10, Tobey further teaches, wherein the alert indicates the update to the policy score (See at least Col 14, lines 16-2 6, “ Driving safety information system 300 is also adaptable so as to communicate such information through other communication means including but not limited to e-mail, pager notification, instant messaging, short message services, or other equivalent and available electronic communication means. In this example, the administrator for the offending driver would be able to observe various information resulting from the traffic violation, including, the nature of the event (i.e. that the offending driver ran a red light), the impact of the event on the driver's profile (e.g. if the driver's risk level has changed), and the type and progress of offered remediation ”). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 8 . 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 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 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 9 . Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tobey in view of Chen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number (20 19 /01 4 3 994 A1) . Regarding Claim 3, Tobey teaches the limitation of claim 2, However, Tobey does not explicitly teach, wherein at least one source is insurance company records . Chen, however, teaches, wherein at least one source is insurance company records (See at least [0034], “ The data storage 150 may store data and/or instructions …. The data storage 150 may obtain the data relating to vehicle accidents from a third party (e.g., a traffic department, an insurance institution, etc. ” ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Tobey to incorporate the disclosure of Chen. The motivation for combining these references would have been to determine a safety score associated with a driver by gathering data associated with a driver from various sources. 10 . Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tobey in view of Hsieh et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number (20 16 /0 2802 3 0 A1) . Regarding Claim 11, Tobey teaches the limitation of claim 10, However, Tobey does not explicitly teach, wherein the alert automatically prohibits access, by the driver, to a vehicle or physical site . Hsieh, however, teaches, wherein the alert automatically prohibits access, by the driver, to a vehicle or physical site (See at least [0008], “ when it is determined that the state of the driver is unsuitable for driving, triggering an interference action that includes one of outputting an alert, preventing the vehicle from starting up and a combination thereof. ” Preventing the vehicle from starting up can be interpreted as prohibiting access to a vehicle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Tobey to incorporate the disclosure of Hsieh. The motivation for combining these references would have been to provide a detecting method that can perform a driving safety evaluation regarding a state of a driver of a vehicle. (See Hsieh, [0004]). Examiner Request 1 1 . The Applicant is request to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance. Conclusion 1 2 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVIN SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM. 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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /B.D.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3694 December 18 , 2025 /BENNETT M SIGMOND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694