Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant filed an amendment on 12/29/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-3, 9- 11, and 17-19 are herein amended. No claims are canceled or added thus after careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments the examiner finds them to moot in view of new grounds of rejection. This action is a Final Rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 17 objected to because of the following informalities: see below. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: as amended, the “cost” of a transportation related service …. During a second predefined time period subsequent…. . A search for “cost” in the specification finds it only to have been present in the claims themselves. There is no subsequent support. However, on review of the spec. the system can identify patterns about subsequently received data. For the purpose of examination the cost of the transportation service will be treated generically as the subsequent and cost elements are not specifically defined. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are directed to a “device” (system), method and non-transitory computer readable medium claims which are statutory classes.
However, the claims are directed to tracking users for insurance policy purposes by user mobile devices which are basically cell phones. Insurance billing is a fundamental economic practice.
The abstract elements of claim 1 include;
in response to a user input of a request to initiate a trip via a transportation network using a mobile application executing on the …., …. To collect telematics data corresponding to the trip from the …, and transmit the collected telematics data to the …. the telematics data generated using at least one sensor onboard the …; for each of a plurality of trips including the initiated trip, store the telematics data collected by …. in a database in association with a trip identifier and a timestamp; periodically perform a lookup in the database to identify, based upon the timestamps, telematics data corresponding to at least one trip of the plurality of trips taken during a predefined time period; and calculate, based upon the identified telematics data for the first predefined time period, a transportation cost including a first amount providing a transportation related service to the user using the transportation network during a second predefined period subsequent to the first defined time period.
Here the non-abstract idea is “a user mobile device” and at least one processor which communicates with a database which is not necessarily fully claimed to be a centralized computer. The added element “for generating transportation analytics data collected by one or more sensors located within a mobile device… is in the pre-amble and thus has minimal patentable weight. Further more “for generating” is more of an intended use as it the purpose rather than the action itself.
The application of abstract ideas with a generic computing device would not be patentable because the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because using a mobile device to determine insurance cost is merely applying technology to a generic computing element. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Here applicant has improved the claim but, in the examiner’s view not yet provided a technical solution to solve a technical problem. The applicant is relying on a mobile device such as a cellphone to perform actions. The “transportation network” broadly could be a group of vehicles or an actual network with computers etc. Likewise the data is transmitted to the at least one processor , the at least one processor is not clearly a separate computer from the mobile phone as claimed. “the at least one processor” refers to the computing device which is itself a computing device for generating transportation analytics based upon telematics data…. But, the computing device is not separately defined. For example 0025 of the specification indicates transportation analytics computing device. Is this the same computing device or a different one that described in claim 1 for example.
Claims 2-8 and 11-16 and 18-20 contain the following additional elements that might be helpful.
Claim 7 – communicatively lined to a transportation device. Claim 15 is similar to claim 7.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication to Walsey 20200273113 in view of US Patent Publication 20130190967 to Hassib further in view of US Patent Publication 2017/0116696 to Moore
As per claim 1, Walsey discloses; A computing device for generating transportation analytics based upon telematics data collected by one or more sensors located within a mobile device, the computing device comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device and a user mobile device corresponding to a user, the at least one processor configured to: (pre-amble has minimal weight) in response to a user input of a request to initiate a trip via a transportation network using a mobile application executing on the user mobile device, cause the user mobile device to collect receive telematics data corresponding to the trip from the user mobile device
Walsey(0098, rideshare, telematics 0124, 011, the mobile device might be a variety of users, as per Walsey including the passenger in the vehicle)
Walsey does not explicitly disclose what Hassib teaches;
and transmit the collected telematics data to the at least one processor,
the telematics data generated using at least one sensor onboard the user mobile device;
Hassib(0049 and fig 9, 0051 mobile device may collect telematics, or installed in the vehicle )
for each of a plurality of trips including the initiated trip, store the telematics data collected by the user mobile device in a database in association with a trip identifier and a timestamp;
Hassib(0049 and fig 9, 0051 mobile device may collect telematics, or installed in the vehicle )
periodically perform a lookup in the database to identify, based upon the timestamps, telematics data corresponding to at least one trip of the plurality of trips taken during a first predefined time period; and Hassib(0078, periodic data collection…. Or summary data 0067, see table 2 for examples of time stamps and data collected for a trip)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the telematic disclosure of Walsey and the onboard tracking of Hassib for the motivation of monitoring individual behaviors by telematics including knowing the identity of the person. (0006-8)
Walsey and Hassib do not explicitly disclose what Moore teaches;
calculate, based upon the identified telematics data for the first predefined time period, a transportation cost including a premium first amount for an insurance policy
covering providing a transportation-related service to
the user using the transportation network during a second predefined time period subsequent to the first predefined time period.
(0062-63, the transportation cost includes insurance which may be for the rider and or the driver or both and the insurance is per ride, ie the premium, it is noted per above that a second time subsequent is not clearly supported and thus I generically interpreted to be a time period)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the insurance system of Walsey and the ride pricing, including insurance of Moore for the motivation of pricing costs of insurance based on actual conditions rather than actuarial. (0009, in summary)
As per claims 2, 10 and 18, Walsey discloses;
The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transfer the first amount from a transportation network account associated with the transportation network to an insurer account associated with an insurer associated with the transportation related service policy.
Walsey(055, transportation “related” what is related?)
As per claims 3, 11 and 19, Walsey disclose rideshare insurance. However, for the total cost of the transportation, ie charging the user including the first amount, Moore teaches (0040) an apt to charge the cost for transportation which includes insurance. The motivation would be similar to that provided for the independent claims.
As per claim 4, Walsey discloses; The computing device Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: generate, at the user mobile device, a user interface including at least one of a plurality of coverage types and a plurality of coverage amounts; and cause the user mobile device to display the user interface.
Walsey(0176, 0185 mobile application…)
As per claims 5, 12 and 20 Walsey discloses;
The computing device of Claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, from the user via the user interface, a user input including a selection of at least one of a coverage type of the plurality of coverage types or a coverage amount from the plurality of coverage amounts; and calculate the transportation cost further based upon the user input.
Walsey(0176)
As per claims 6, 14 Walsey discloses The computing device of Claim 5, wherein the user input includes a coverage amount. Walsey(0176 coverage for the vehicle, a coverage is the amount)
As per claims 7, and 15 Walsey discloses; The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the user mobile device is configured to communicatively link to a transportation device associated with the transportation network, and wherein at least some of the plurality of trips correspond to rides taken by the user using the transportation device.
Walsey( 0064 motor vehicle here, applicant spec, 0044 says transportation device is motor vehicle, bicycle or scooter for example)
As per claims 8, 16 Walsey discloses; The computing device of Claim 7, wherein the transportation device includes at least one of a motor vehicle, a bicycle, or powered scooter.
Walsey(0064, one of … motor vehicle)
As per claim 13 Walsey discloses;
The computer-implemented method of Claim 12, further comprising: receiving, from the user via the user interface, a user input including a selection of at least one of a coverage type of the plurality of coverage types or a coverage amount from the plurality of coverage amounts; and calculating the transportation cost further based upon the user input.
(0078)
Response to Arguments
Applicant filed an amendment on 12/29/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-3, 9- 11, and 17-19 are herein amended. No claims are canceled or added thus after careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments the examiner finds them to moot in view of new grounds of rejection. This action is a Final Rejection.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection
Applicant argues that the Pending Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A. The MPEP requires a two prong inquiry.
In the first prong, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If so, in the second prong, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim both recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate that exception into a practical application, then the claim is "directed to" a judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A).
In the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and in particular an abstract idea, by (a) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites the abstract idea; and (b) determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The Office Action alleges, at Pages 2-3, that the claims fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Applicant respectfully disagrees. As stated in the August 4, 2025 USPTO memorandum (Kim, Charles. "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101." August 4, 2025), "Examiners should
be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) from claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis)."
(Emphasis added.) Applicant respectfully submits that, even if the current claim limitations were considered to involve an exception, these claim limitations do not recite any human activity.
For example, amended Claim 1 recites a processor configured to "in response to a user input of a request to initiate a trip via a transportation network using a mobile application executing on the user mobile device, cause the user mobile device to collect telematics data corresponding to the trip from the user mobile device and transmit the collected telematics data to the at least one processor, the telematics data generated using at least one sensor onboard the user mobile device," "for each of a plurality of trips including the initiated trip, store the telematics data collected by the user mobile device in a database in association with a trip identifier and a timestamp," periodically perform a lookup in the database to identify, based upon the timestamps, telematics data corresponding to at least one trip of the plurality of trips taken during a first predefined time period," and "calculate, based upon the identified telematics data for the first predefined time period, a transportation cost including a first amount for providing a transportation-related service to the user using the transportation network during a second predefined time period subsequent to the first predefined time period."
These recitations do not fall within any of the enumerated categories of abstract ideas.
Nevertheless, in any event, even assuming arguendo that the independent claims recite an enumerated judicial exception, the present claims are subject-matter eligible under the second prong of Step 2A. In the second prong, the Office evaluates whether a claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Importantly, "Step 2A specifically excludes consideration of whether the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, in Step 2A Prong Two, examiners should ensure that they give weight to all additional elements, whether or not they
are conventional, when evaluating whether a judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application." MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I).
One path to establishing a practical application is to show an improvement to another technology. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). In this case, Claim 1 utilizes a user mobile device that is configured to collect telematics data in response to receiving instructions from a separate computing device, which enables the telematics data to be associated with trips taken by a user associated with the user mobile device, thereby improving an ability of the computing device to make determinations relating to the user's transportation behavior based upon this telematics data.
Accordingly, in this case, "the specification sets forth an improvement in technology ... [and] the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification," which is sufficient to establish a practical application. See MPEP § 2104.04(d)(1). Independent Claims 9 and 17, although differing in scope, include similar recitations.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the § 101 rejection be withdrawn because the claims are not "directed to" an abstract idea.
Here in regards to practical application, the examiner’s judgement is that this is not yet a practical application. Furthermore while the technical elements of the specification may indicate more than one devices or an improvement in technology, the claims as currently recited appear to not define a separate element from the user mobile device. For example the pre-amble which has limited patentable weight refers to a computing device. However, it’s not clear if this device is different from the user mobile device. The device is defined based on purpose rather an reciting a specific device and utilizing it in the claims themselves.
Likewise transportation network could be a network or it could be something else. These limitations alone are abstractly incorporated into the claims.
B. Applicant's Claims Are Directed to "Significantly More" Than the Abstract Idea
With that said, even assuming for the sake of argument that the pending claims are directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the claims are directed to something "significantly more" than the idea itself.
One path to show that a claim recites "significantly more" is to identify "a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or... unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application." MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A)(v). Moreover, at this second step of the analysis, the elements of each claim must be examined both individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible application. MPEP §2106.05(d). "Even if one or more additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity when considered individually, the combination of additional elements may amount to an inventive10
concept." MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I)(3) ("For example, a microprocessor that performs mathematical calculations and a clock that produces time data may individually be generic computer components that perform merely generic computer functions, but when combined may perform functions that are not generic computer functions and thus be an inventive concept.").
In the instant Application, the pending claims clearly recite more than well-understood, routine, or conventional functionality computer systems, at least with respect to the at least one processor configured to "in response to a user input of a request to initiate a trip via a transportation network using a mobile application executing on the user mobile device, cause the user mobile device to collect telematics data corresponding to the trip from the user mobile device and transmit the collected telematics data to the at least one processor, the telematics data generated using at least one sensor onboard the user mobile device,""for each of a plurality of trips including the initiated trip, store the telematics data collected by the user mobile device in a database in association with a trip identifier and a timestamp,""periodically perform a lookup in the database to identify, based upon the timestamps, telematics data corresponding to at least one trip of the plurality of trips taken during a first predefined time period," and "calculate, based upon the identified telematics data for the first predefined time period, a transportation cost including a first amount for providing a transportation-related service to the user using the transportation network during a second predefined time period subsequent to the first predefined time period."
The Office Action provides no indication that these recitations of the pending claims (alone or as an ordered combination) are well understood, routine, or conventional in computer systems. As the Federal Circuit confirmed in Berkheimer, even if the Office Action asserts that the pending claims are rendered obvious by virtue of disparate publications, this does not amount to evidence that the recitations are well understood, routine, or conventional under this second step. See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1369 ("Whether a particular technology is well-understood, routine, and conventional goes beyond what was simply known in the prior art. The merefact that something is disclosed in a piece of prior art, for example, does not mean that it was well-understood, routine and conventional.") (emphasis added); see also MPEP §2106.05(d) ("An additional element (or combination of additional elements) that is known in the art can still be unconventional or non- routine. The question of whether a particular claimed invention is novel or obvious is 'fully apart' from the question of whether it is eligible."). The fact that the pending claims overcome the cited11
art for the reasons described below with respect to the traversal of the Section 103 rejection strengthens the conclusion that these steps are not well understood, routine, and conventional.
Although different in scope, independent Claims 9 and 17 include similar limitations. In summary, the Section 101 rejection should be withdrawn because it was not well-understood, routine, or conventional to perform the steps discussed above.
For at least the reasons described above, Applicant respectfully requests the Section 101 rejection of Claims 1, 9, and 17, and their respective dependent claims, be withdrawn.
Here significantly more an ordered combination are elements of interpretation. It does not appear that the applicant is using more than generic computing elements. For example use mobile device is the only actual recitation of a device which can be determined to be explicitly separate hardware. Thus the claims are still recited at a high level of generality.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection
The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being allegedly unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0273113 to Walsey in view of U.S. Publication No. 2013/0190967 to Hassib and U.S. Publication No. 2017/0116696 to Moore is respectfully traversed.
Walsey describes a computer processes that include receiving, by an administrator server system, a set of first data feeds from a set of servers of a set of monitoring companies that compensate the monitored drivers for driving services and/or provide non-driving contractual services to the drivers.
(See Walsey, Abstract.) Each one of the monitored drivers is monitored in real time by means of at least one application executing on a mobile computing device in communication with a server operated by one of the monitoring companies. (See id.)
Hassib describes a method that includes receiving, at a mobile computing device, and from a Vehicle Identification Unit (VIU), identification data representing a first vehicle and receiving, by the mobile computing device, sensor data from one or more sensors associated with the mobile computing device. (See Hassib, Abstract.)
Moore describes a dispatch system that includes a driver scale, and acceptable driver fee, and passenger indicia. (See Moore, Abstract.)
The driver scale may be displayed on a driver graphical interface. (See id.) An acceptable driver fee associated with a portion of the driver scale may be selectable by a driver and displayed on the driver graphical interface, and passenger indicia may be displayed on the driver graphical interface dependent on the value of the selected acceptable driver fee. (See id.)
No combination of Walsey, Hassib, and Moore describes or suggests a computing device configured to
"periodically perform a lookup in the database to identify, based upon the timestamps, telematics data corresponding to at least one trip of the plurality of trips taken during a first predefined time period," and
"calculate, based upon the identified telematics data for the first predefined time period, a transportation cost including a first amount for providing a transportation-related service to the user using the transportation network during a second predefined time period subsequent to the first predefined time period."
Here “at least one trip” broadly could be one trip. It is noted that the second predefined time period is not supported at least literally so applicant might not be persuasive on this second element.
Accordingly, because no combination of Walsey, Hassib, and Moore describe or suggest a computing device as recited in Claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 1 is patentable over Walsey, Hassib, and Moore.
Here the examiner has updated the rejection in view of applicant amendments. It is noted above that the second time period may not be supported by applicant specification.
Claims 9, 17 are argued similar to claim 1.
The dependent claims, 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are argued by virtue of dependency only.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PriPAYD: Privacy-Friendly Pay-As-You-Drive Insurance, IEEE 2010
Usage-based insurance system based on carrier-cloud-client, IEEE 2015
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693