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
This Office Action is in response to the Office Action Response dated October 13, 2025. Claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-16, 19-21, 23, 25 and 27 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant present various arguments on why the claims satisfy 35 USC 101, as follows.
At the onset, Applicant argues that the steps recited in amended independent claim 2 cannot be practically performed in the mind as it is not equipped to: i) analyze mobile device sensor data collected from at least one of a location sensor or an accelerometer of the mobile device, ii) calculate a number of acceleration actions per distance unit for the travel segment, and iii) determine the vehicle mode associated with the travel segment based on the calculated number of acceleration action per distance unit and a predetermined acceleration action threshold value. In response, the Office notes that: i) one could mentally analyze mobile sensor data, whether it is displayed on a screen or rendered on paper, regardless of the particular origin of the data (i.e. location/accelerometer data): ii) calculating a number of acceleration actions per segment could be perform by hand or within one’s mind by simply counting acceleration spikes; and iii) determine the vehicle mode could be perfomed by simply visually viewing the acceleration data to determine if it exceeds a threshold within a travel segment. In summary, none of the foregoing features extend beyond an abstract idea/concept.
Applicant further argues, with respect to step 2A, prong two, of the 101 analyses, that claim 2, as a whole, integrates the claim into a practical application. As examples, Applicant indicates: i) that the system obtains specific data and performs specific steps to improve vehicle mode detection accuracy, ii) address a technology problem of detecting and validating a mode of transportation for a user of a mobile device who may utilize multiple modes of transportation, and iii) obtains specific data collected from at least one of a location sensor or an accelerometer of a mobile device, iv) determining the vehicle mode associated with the travel segment based on calculated acceleration actions per distance unit of the travel segment and a predefined acceleration action threshold value to achieve a specific outcome of improving vehicle mode detection accuracy. In response, the Office notes that none of the foregoing integrates the claims into a practical application as no tangible change is being made to a device or system, no change is being made on how a device or system operates, the resulting analysis is not being used, and there is no interaction between components, other than generic computer components. In short, other than receiving data, all of the claim features are directed towards abstract ideas which could be performed within the human mind, by hand and/or through computer computations.
Applicant finally argues, with respect to step 2B, of the 101 analyses, that claim 2 recites an improved system that determines and validates a vehicle mode for a travel segment during a trip based on data collected from a mobile device. In response, the Office notes that these arguments do not overcome the finding that but for receiving data, all of the claim features are directed towards abstract ideas which could be performed within the human mind, by hand and/or through computer computations.
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, 5-7, 9, 12-16 and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
With respect to claim 2, the claim recites:
Claim 2: A system for detecting a vehicle mode associated with a travel segment, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
A) associate a user of a mobile device with an insurance policy, the insurance policy indicating a registered vehicle mode assigned to one or more previous travel segments;
B) receive mobile device sensor data collected by one or more sensors of the mobile device during a trip, the one or more sensors including at least one of a location sensor or an accelerometer, the mobile device sensor data including acceleration data and location data;
C) determine, based on the acceleration data and the location data, a first stopping point and a second stopping point encountered during the trip;
D) assign, the mobile device sensor data collected between the first stopping point and the second stopping point as the travel segment;
E) calculate a number of acceleration actions per distance unit for the travel segment;
F) determine, based on the number of acceleration actions per distance unit and a predefined acceleration action threshold value, the vehicle mode associated with the travel segment;
G) validate the vehicle mode by comparing the vehicle mode to the registered vehicle mode, wherein the validating includes determining whether the vehicle mode corresponds to the registered vehicle mode of at least one previous travel segment of the one or more previous travel segments; and
H) assign, based on the validation of the vehicle mode, the vehicle mode to the travel segment.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) “associate,” “determine,” “assign,” and “validate” constitute “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover processes that could be performed in the human mind, or by hand, should the generic processor and memory not be available. For example: associating an insurance policy with a user’s mobile phone can be performed mentally or noted by hand by reviewing download and installation data associated with an insurance mobile application; determining stopping points based upon presented acceleration data can be performed through observation of the data; assigning a travel segment based upon stopping points can be performed mentally or noted by hand based upon segments between stopping points; determining a vehicle mode can be made through observation of sensor data; validating a vehicle mode can be performed through observation of the previously stored registered vehicle mode to the actual vehicle mode data; and assigning a vehicle mode to a travel segment can be performed mentally or noted by hand. With respect to “calculate,” the Office notes that this can be perform through a “mental process” or through “mathematical operation,” and therefor is also directed towards an abstract idea. For example, calculating acceleration actions per segment can merely involve counting, within one’s own mind, the number of recorded accelerations in a given length. Additionally, mathematical operations can be performed to also identify accelerations based upon collection of data.
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Claim 2: A system for detecting a vehicle mode associated with a travel segment, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
A) associate a user of a mobile device with an insurance policy, the insurance policy indicating a registered vehicle mode assigned to one or more previous travel segments;
B) receive mobile device sensor data collected by one or more sensors of the mobile device during a trip, the one or more sensors including at least one of a location sensor or an accelerometer, the mobile device sensor data including acceleration data and location data;
C) determine, based on the acceleration data and the location data, one or more stopping points encountered during the trip;
D) assign, based on a first stopping point and a second stopping point, the travel segment;
E) calculate a number of acceleration actions per distance unit for the travel segment;
F) determine, based on the mobile device sensor data, the vehicle mode associated with the travel segment;
G) validate the vehicle mode by comparing the vehicle mode to the registered vehicle mode, wherein the validating includes determining whether the vehicle mode corresponds to the registered vehicle mode of at least one previous travel segment of the one or more previous travel segments; and
H) assign, based on the validation of the vehicle mode, the vehicle mode to the travel segment.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “at least one processor; and at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions,” the examiner submits that the processor is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (receiving data, performing abstract ideas, and storing data). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receive mobile device sensor data,” the examiner submits that the claim feature amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. activity incidental to the **primary process or product** that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The Office further notes that the indication of the original of the data, i.e. location or accelerometer sensor, is nothing more than indicating the origin of the data which is received by the system.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
With respect to “at least one processor; and at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions”, the Office notes that the processor is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (receiving data and performing abstract ideas). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In looking at the Specification, in reference to para 0054, nothing appears to indicate that the processor and memory comprise generic processor and memory configured for performing operations of an application.
With respect to “receive mobile device sensor data”, the Office notes that the mere obtaining, retrieving and receiving of data is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). See The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, nothing in the Written Description indicates any particular means for obtaining the data and hence could be performed through any typical means. In looking at the Specification, in reference to paras 0035-0039, nothing appears to indicate that the reception of data comprises any more that comprise generic processor and memory configured for receiving sensor data.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
With respect to independent claims 9 and 16, these claims recite the same features as independent claim 2 and accordingly, are deemed to be directed towards an abstract idea.
With respect to dependent claims 5-8, 12-15 and 19-27, these claims merely narrow the previously recited abstract ideas or present additional abstract ideas. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 2, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Independent claims 2, 9 and 16 include allowable subject matter not taught by the prior art. The features of “associate a user of a mobile device with an insurance policy, the insurance policy indicating a registered vehicle mode assigned to one or more previous travel segments…determine, based on the mobile device sensor data, the vehicle mode using the sensor data collected during the travel segment, the vehicle mode associated with the travel segment and the user…validate the vehicle mode by comparing the vehicle mode to the registered vehicle mode, wherein the validating includes determining whether the vehicle mode corresponds to the registered vehicle mode of at least one previous travel segment of the one or more previous travel segments; and assign, based on the validation of the vehicle mode, the vehicle mode to the travel segment,” renders the claims novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. 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.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B