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 .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on January 29, 2026 has been entered. Claims 4, 6-9, 13, 15, and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-3, 10-12, and 16-18 have been cancelled. Claims 21-29 have been newly 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; and
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.
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 January 29, 2026 have been fully considered.
As a result of Applicant’s amendments and its arguments, the pending rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 are hereby withdrawn. Hayward does not teach collecting data from two distinct sources and correlating them to validate the vehicle's physical state (e.g., verifying the vehicle is actually moving by comparing phone data to vehicle data). Hayward relies on the mobile device to determine if the vehicle is being driven.
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 “As the claim does not recite a fundamental economic practice (e.g., pricing, billing), it is not directed to the alleged abstract idea cited in the Office Action.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 13). However, the heart of this invention is tied to performing collecting vehicle data and switching insurance coverage based on the data gathered. These claims most definitely recite an abstract idea. Specifically, this is within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions.
Applicant also argues that “Even if the Office Action were to allege new independent claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea, the claim recites specific additional limitations that integrate the idea into a practical application.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 13). There are no interactive features in this invention and 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
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 Mon - Thu 8 AM - 6 PM EST. 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.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner
Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights