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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action dated April 08, 2026 has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 24, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The Amendment filed on June 24, 2026 has been entered. Claims 21, 24, and 27 have been amended. Claims 1-3, 10-12, and 16-18 have been cancelled. No new claims have been added. Thus, claims 4-9, 13-15, and 19-29 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 4-9, 13-15, and 19-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 4-9, 13-15, and 19-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 4-9 and 21-23), a machine (claims 13-15 and 24-26) and a manufacture (claims 19-20 and 27-29), where the machine and manufacture are substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of using vehicle data to adjust insurance coverage by:
collecting first telematics data from a first source associated with a vehicle;
collecting second telematics data from a second source comprising a,…, associated with a user;
correlating the first telematics data and the second telematics data to validate a physical state of the vehicle;
determining, based on the correlation of the first telematics data and the second telematics data, whether the vehicle is in a moving state or a stationary state;
switching an insurance coverage type associated with the vehicle between a first coverage type and a second coverage type in real-time based on the determination that the vehicle is in the moving state or the stationary state.
determining that connectivity with the vehicle or the,…, has been lost collecting third telematics data from the vehicle or,…, wherein the third telematics data was collected by the vehicle or mobile device over a connectionless time period based on a determination by the vehicle or,…, that connectivity has been lost such that the vehicle or,…,continues accumulating the third telematics data at the vehicle or,…,over the connectionless time period and the third telematics data is collected after connectivity is re-established after the connectionless time period;
based on the third telematics data collected during the connectionless time period, determining whether the vehicle is in the moving state or the stationary state; and
when the vehicle has switched state between the moving state or the stationary state in the connectionless time period, switching the insurance coverage based on the determination that the vehicle has switched between the moving state or stationary state.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., using vehicle data to adjust insurance coverage).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Independent claims 24 and 27 are nearly identical to independent claim 21 so the same analysis applies to those two claims as well. Claim 27 includes additional elements such as a “medium” and “processor” which are being used to implement the abstract idea noted in claim 21.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “device,” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0038] of the specification).
Dependent claims 4–9, 13–15, 19-20, 22-23, 25-26, and 28-29 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 4, 13, and 19 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 21 in that they describe that the collected telematics data includes location data. Dependent claims 5, 14, and 20 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 21 in that they describe that the location data includes GPS data. Dependent claims 6 and 15 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 21 in that they describe that the collected telematics data includes acceleration data. Dependent claim 7 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 21 in that it describes that the collected telematics data is linked to vehicle tire rotation. Dependent claim 8 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 21 in that it describes that the collected telematics data includes vehicle battery status data. Dependent claim 9 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 21 in that it describes determining the user’s location to the vehicle based on using generic signal tracking via Bluetooth. Dependent claims 22, 25, and 28 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 21 in that they describe that the correlating the first telematics data and second telematics data comprises comparing location data or acceleration to verify that the mobile device is located within the vehicle. Dependent claims 23, 26, and 29 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 21 in that they describe the use of a OBD dongle that uses a Bluetooth signal for communication.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea)
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments filed on June 24, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Here, the claims recite a specific improvement in the functioning of a telematics-based system: the ability to accurately track and account for vehicle movement state even during periods of connectivity interruption, using a defined technical process of local data accumulation and post-reconnection collection. Thus, the claims here are similarly patent eligible.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 9). Applicant also states that “Here, the specific arrangement - dual-source data correlation, real-time coverage switching, connectivity loss detection, local offline accumulation, post-reconnection collection, and retroactive state change determination - represents a specific technical solution that goes well beyond generic data collection or abstract mental steps.” Id. at p. 10. However, collecting vehicle data through generic sensors is not a technological improvement. This is gathering specific data and making a determination as to what insurance type to issue based on the data that is gathered at a specific time.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIT PATEL whose telephone number is (313)446-4902. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday, 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
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, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. 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.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights