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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 12, 2025 has been entered.
This is the Non-Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed on December 12, 2025 for Application No. 18/387,995 filed on November 08, 2023, titled: “Interactive Dashboard Display”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 2-21 were pending. By the 12/12/2025 Response, claims 2, 5, 9, 17, 18, and 19 have been amended, and no claim has been added or cancelled. Claim 1 was previously cancelled by the 01/29/2024 Amendment. Accordingly, claims 2-21 are pending in this application and have been examined.
Priority
This Application is a CON of U.S. Application No. 17/099,028 filed on 11/16/2020 (Patented No. 11,948,199) which is a CON of U.S. Application No. 15/262,541 filed on 09/12/2016 (Patent No. 10,846,799) which is a CIP of U.S. Application No. 15/170,203 filed on 06/01/2016 (Patented No. 9,569,799) and a CIP of U.S. Application No. 15/138,576 filed on 04/26/2016 (Patent No. 10,861,100). Also, U.S. Application No. 15/170,203 is a CON of U.S. Application No. 14/607,636 filed on 01/28/2015 (Patent No. 9,390,452) and U.S. Application No. 15/138,576 is a CON of U.S. Application No. 14/607 filed on 01/28/2015 (Patented No. 9,390,452).
For the purpose of examination, the 01/28/2015 is considered to be the effective filing date.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,948,199 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,846,799. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application recite substantially the same limitations as the claims of the patents with minor variations that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art. Also, both the application and patents are directed to the same invention of interactive dashboard display and commonly owned. Therefore, this rejection is deemed necessary.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Computing device claims 1 and 9 are broader than method claim 19, see steps “receiving …” and “indicating …” in claim 19 where they have the steps of “determining” and “responsive”. The device claims 1 and 9 do not match the method claim 19.
Appropriate correction is required or explain why claims 1 and 9 do not have to be matched with claim 19 in response to this Office Action.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 2-8 recite a computing device for displaying driving information, claims 9-18 recite another computing device for displaying driving information, and claims 19-21 recite a method for displaying driving information. Therefore, the claims recite a method and machines which fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 19, A method of displaying driving information, the method comprising:
receiving, from one or more sensors of a vehicle, sensor data associated with operation of the vehicle during a driving trip;
identifying, from the sensor data, one or more driving behaviors including at least one of hard braking, rapid acceleration, or swerving;
continuously processing, based at least in part on the received sensor data, a driving performance metric associated with the operation of the vehicle during the driving trip, wherein the driving performance metric is recalculated in substantially real-time upon receiving changed sensor data during the driving trip;
indicating, via a user interface of a computing device within the vehicle and in real-time, a driving performance metric and the identified one or more driving behaviors associated with the operation of the vehicle during the driving trip, wherein the driving performance metric is updated on the user interface responsive to changes in the sensor data changes during the driving trip;
receiving a user input identifying a potential hazard associated with the driving trip;
determining, using one or more processors of the computing device, whether the potential hazard has been identified a threshold number of times; and
indicating, via the user interface of the computing device, and responsive to the potential hazard being identified the threshold number of times, a notice of the potential hazard.
The above limitations (underlined), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., vehicle sensors, user interface, computing device, driving performance metric (consumption rate risks units), processor and memory). More specifically, the claim is directed to a method of identifying the driving behaviors from the received sensor data associated with operation of a vehicle during a driving trip, determining the driving performance metric associated with the operation of the vehicle during the driving trip, and indicating a notice of the potential hazard associated with the driving trip in order to determine an insurance policy by: receiving sensor data associated with operation of a vehicle during a driving trip, identifying the driving behaviors, determining a driving performance metric associated with the operation of the vehicle during the driving trip, indicating the driving performance metric and driving behaviors via a user interface in real-time, receiving a user input identifying a potential hazard, determining whether the potential hazard has been identified a threshold number of times, and indicating the potential hazard. The claim recites concepts correspond to a method of organizing human activity and relates to fundamental economic practices (i.e., hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and/or commercial interactions (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relation). The claim is basically implementing the abstract idea in a particular technological environment (i.e., insurance system). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C.2.
The amendment, such as “identifying, from the sensor data, one or more driving behaviors including at least one of hard braking, rapid acceleration, or swerving;” is basically to identify driving behaviors (i.e., hard braking, rapid acceleration, or swerving). The amendments further narrow the scope of the claim, but does not change the analysis. Further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the 101 analysis since a narrower abstract idea does not make it any less abstract. Thus, the amendments do not take the claim out of the abstract idea.
The amendment, such as “continuously processing a driving performance metric wherein the driving performance metric is recalculated in substantially real-time upon receiving changed sensor data during the driving trip;” is basically a mathematical calculation for calculating and recalculating a driving performance matric associated with the operation of the vehicle during the driving trip.
The amendment, such as “indicating, via a user interface of a computing device within the vehicle and in real-time, a driving performance metric and the identified one or more driving behaviors driving performance metric on the user interface responsive to changes in [[as]] the sensor data changes during the driving trip;” is basically for indicating the driving performance metric and the identified driving behaviors.
The last steps of “receiving …” and “indicating …” are to receive a user input identifying a potential hazard and determining a threshold number of times of hazard, indicating and responding to the potential hazard faster so that the user can receive the most current information as the sensor data changes during the driving trip. The “real-time” sensor data input (or faster data input and thus faster calculation and indication) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is basically using the existing technology (faster internet) to implement the abstract idea. The amendments further narrow the scope of the claim, but does not change the analysis. Further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the 101 analysis since a narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract. Thus, these steps do not take the claim out of the abstract idea.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice or commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, Claim 19 recites an abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites a computing device and Claim 9 recites another computing device with the comparable elements and limitations as discussed in Claim 19. The mere nominal recitation of computer components do not take the claims out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Therefore, Claims 2 and 9 also recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims (2, 9, and 19) recite the additional elements of vehicle sensors, user interface, computing device, driving performance metric, display, processors, memory, and wireless communication interface. All the computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of receiving/transmitting communications, processing information, querying the database) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This substantiated in Applicant’s Specification in paragraphs 26 “… Any suitable computer-readable storage media may be utilized … and/or any combination thereof …”, 27 “… any of multiple systems or devices described herein, such as personal mobile devices, vehicle-based computing devices …”, 28 “… The various hardware memory units in memory 115 may include volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data … or any other medium …”, 35 “… any external devices …”, 37 “… any of various network protocols … any of these network protocols or technologies.”.
As explained in above, the previous added amendments such as “real-time” is no more than utilizing existing technology (faster internet and thus faster data input, calculation, and indication) to implement the abstract idea. The newly added amendments further narrow the scope of the claim, but does not change the analysis. Further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the 101 analysis since a narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract. Therefore, the additional elements and the newly added amendments do not integrate the claims into a practical application. 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. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2-No, the claims are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As noted in above, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of indicating the potential hazard by receiving sensor data, calculating a driving performance metric data, indicating the driving performance metric in real-time, receiving input to identify a potential hazard, determining if potential hazard data exceed the threshold, and indicating the potential hazard. All these generic computer functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry similar to those referenced by MPEP 2106.05(d) II.
The claims (2, 9, and 19) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer hardware and/or software to perform receiving, identifying, processing, indicating, receiving, determining, and indicating functions as claimed amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-8, 10-18, and 20-21 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 2, 9, and 19 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Claims 3, 10, and 20 recite the additional elements “wherein the user input includes an oral indication of the potential hazard detected by a microphone of the computing device”. (Additional details for the microphone for user input - these claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 4, 13, and 21 recite the additional elements “further comprising transmitting, using a wireless communication interface, a notice of the potential hazard to one or more other drivers within a predefined proximity to the vehicle”. (Additional elements for using a wireless communication interface for indicating the potential hazard - these claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 5 recite the additional elements “wherein the button is located on a vehicle display” and “wherein the button is located on a steering wheel of the vehicle”. (Additional details for the locations of the button - these claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 7-8 recite the additional elements “wherein: the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the computing device to determine whether the potential hazard has been identified a threshold number of times; and presenting the notice is based at least partly on determining whether the potential hazard has been identified a threshold number of times” and “wherein determining whether the potential hazard has been identified the threshold number of times includes receiving other indications of the potential hazard from other drivers”. (Additional detailed instructions for determining whether the potential hazard exceeds the threshold and presenting the notice and the potential hazard includes other indications from other drivers - these claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites the additional elements “the one or more sensors includes at least a global positioning system (GPS) sensor; the sensor data includes at least GPS data; and the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the computing device to determine that the one or more other drivers are within the predefined proximity based on the at least GPS data. of times includes receiving other indications of the potential hazard from other drivers”. (Additional details for the sensors including at least a GPS sensor - this claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provides an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites the additional elements “wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the computing device to: determine whether the potential hazard has been identified a threshold number of times; and responsive to the potential hazard not being identified the threshold number of times, receive an additional user input identifying the potential hazard”. (Additional detailed instructions for determining if the potential hazard has been identified a threshold number of time and receiving an additional user input identify the potential hazard - this claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Claims 13-16 recite the additional elements “further comprising a display having a user interface, and wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the computing device to present, at the user interface of the display, a notice of the potential hazard”, “wherein the display forms at least part of a vehicle dashboard display”, “wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the computing device to present, at the user interface of the display, a recommended driving modification”, and “wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the computing device to present, at the user interface of the display, a particular factor influencing a risk unit consumption rate associated with the driving trip”. (Additional details for what information to be displayed such as potential hazard, driving modification, and the particular factor - these claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provides an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Claims 17-18 recite the additional elements “wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the computing device to present, at the user interface of the display, the driving performance metric and the identified one or more driving behaviors.”, and “wherein the one or more driving behavior includes at least one of hard braking, sharp turning, swerving, or a failure to maintain a lane”. (Additional details for what information to be displayed such as the identified driving behavior including hard braking, sharp turning, swerving, or failure to maintain a lane - these claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provides an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not include any 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 both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims further describe the business relations of the certain method of organizing human activity (abstract idea) and do not include additional elements other those of the independent claims to provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims is on a method of gathering and analyzing the received sensor data associated with operation of a vehicle during a driving trip to determine and indicate the potential hazard. The claims are not directed to a new type of processor, sensor, computer network, or system memory, nor do they provide a method for processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on a certain independent abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
In view of Applicant’s 06/20/2025 Amendment, the double patenting rejection is withheld until the claims are in condition for allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Per pages 1-2 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the amendments integrate the claims into a practical application because the system implements event-driven processing architecture where computation is triggered by incoming sensor data rather than performed on scheduled intervals or aggregated batches. The system continuously processes streaming sensor data to identify driving behaviors patterns and recalculate driving performance metrics in substantially real-time upon receiving changed sensor data during the driving trip, and indicate the driving performance and the identified driving behaviors. This represents an improvement in how computer systems process sensor data and provide real-time feedback. Additionally, the claims recite integration with particular vehicle sensors (accelerometers, location sensors) that generate physical measurements during vehicle operation, and transformation of raw data into identified driving behaviors and calculated performance metrics. Therefore, the claimed subject matter is integrated into a practical application.
Applicant appears to argue that since the system is performed continuously and in real-time, thus, it provides an improvement. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the 101 rejection above, the element “real-time” is no more than utilizing the existing technology (faster network and faster data input, faster computation, and thus faster indication) to implement the abstract idea. The amendments further narrow the scope of the claims, but do not change the analysis. Further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the 101 analysis since a narrower abstract idea does not make it any less abstract. The amendments do not integrate the claims into a practical application. Therefore, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 is MAINTAINED.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 12/12/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. An updated prior art search did not identify any art, individually or in combination with others, that teaches each and every element of the claims at this time.
Future Amendments
Applicant has amended the claims extensively via the 12/12/2025 amendment. However, Applicant did not cite the specific information in Applicant's Specification that supports the amendment. The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the Specification there is support for amendments to claims. This is to reduce future potential 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections that can arise when claims are amended without citing the support in the Specification.
Conclusion
Claims 2-21 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695