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 .
This is a Final Office Action in response to application 18/472,153 entitled "PREMIUM ADJUSTMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT" filed on August 22, 2025, with claims 4-8, 12, 14, 15, 18-23 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-3, 9-11, 16, and 17 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-23 are new.
Claims 4-8, 12, 14, 15, 18-23 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 2, 2026, has been entered. Claims 4-8, 12, 14, 15, 18-23 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 31, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4-8, 12, 14, 15, 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The phrase “dynamic risk profile” in Claim 21 (4-8, based on their dependency), 22 (12-15), 23, and 18-20 contains no clear description in the Specification compounded by the claim amendments distinctly deleting the term “insurance policy.”
There is no “dynamic risk profile” described in the original specification.
While the specification has support for updating an insurance policy in real time, the specification does not clearly state that the insurance policy is the same as a “dynamic risk profile”. On a plain reading of the claim, “dynamic risk profile” has a different scope from an insurance policy.
For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation of “dynamic risk profile” is interpreted as equivalent to an insurance policy. The specification contains support for adjusting an insurance premium, [0027] “the insurance premium is adjusted” and [0028] “Policies can be adjusted (in real-time or after the fact) based on information about a customer”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As Claim 8 is dependent upon Claim 1 which has been cancelled. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. In the spirit of compact prosecution, Claim 8 is considered dependent upon Claim 21.The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ). The scope of the claim is not clear as Claim 8 is dependent upon Claim 1 which has been cancelled. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. In the spirit of compact prosecution, Claim 8 is considered dependent upon Claim 21.
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 4-8, 12, 14, 15, 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 4-8, 12, 14, 15, 18-23 are directed to a system, method/process, machine/apparatus, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 21 recites:
“A method of generating a validated dynamic driving risk profile …associated with a user, the method comprising:
collecting first telematics data from a first source associated …and second telematics data from a second source …associated with the user;
receiving, …the first telematics data and the second telematics data;
correlating the first telematics data and the second telematics data to validate the accuracy of the collected data by identifying a contrast or consistency between the first source and the second source;
processing, …the correlated first telematics data and second telematics data to identify specific driving behaviors and compare the identified driving behaviors against a predefined driving profile or set of driving restrictions to determine a deviation score, the deviation score indicating a degree of deviation from the predefined driving profile or set of driving restrictions;
updating a dynamic risk profile associated with the user based on the determined deviation score; and
…indicative of the updated dynamic risk profile.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer/driver and/or insurance provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “generating a validated dynamic driving risk profile” and “updating a dynamic risk profile” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[comprising a mobile device] [by a computer system comprising one or more processors][by the computer system]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[for a vehicle] [with the vehicle]:
generally linking to automotive technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
[utilizing a machine learning model]:
generally linking to machine learning as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
[generating a notification]:
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering.
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0022] use collected data, such as telematics (e.g., from Tesla or other computer linked automobiles via an application programming interface (API), a third party dongle, from using the sensors and location data built into a mobile phone, mobile applications, etc.)
[0030] Telematics—e.g., provided by a computer linked vehicle, etc. or a user's mobile phone.
[0068] Any suitable programming language can be used to implement the routines, methods or programs of embodiments of the invention described herein, including C, C++, Java, JavaScript, HTML, or any other programming or scripting code, etc. ...Communications between computers implementing embodiments can be accomplished using any electronic, optical, radio frequency signals
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does 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.
For the “generating a notification” step that was considered extra-solution activity and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, the background does not provide any indication that the network appliance is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component that is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Outputting data/notifications: MPEP2106.05(g), Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 4: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 5: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 6: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 7: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 8:
“real-time”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering.
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0022] use collected data, such as telematics (e.g., from Tesla or other computer linked automobiles via an application programming interface (API), a third party dongle, from using the sensors and location data built into a mobile phone, mobile applications, etc.)
[0030] Telematics—e.g., provided by a computer linked vehicle, etc. or a user's mobile phone.
[0068] Any suitable programming language can be used to implement the routines, methods or programs of embodiments of the invention described herein, including C, C++, Java, JavaScript, HTML, or any other programming or scripting code, etc. ...Communications between computers implementing embodiments can be accomplished using any electronic, optical, radio frequency signals
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. 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.
For the “real-time” step that was considered extra-solution activity and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, the background does not provide any indication that the network appliance is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component that is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 22 recites:
“A system comprising: …
collecting first telematics data from a first source…;
collecting second telematics data from a second source …associated with a user;
receiving the first telematics data and the second telematics data;
correlating the first telematics data and the second telematics data to validate the accuracy of the collected data by identifying a contrast or consistency between the first source and the second source;
processing, ….the correlated first telematics data and second telematics data to identify specific driving behaviors and compare the identified driving behaviors against a predefined driving profile or set of driving restrictions to determine a deviation score;
updating a dynamic risk profile associated with the user based on the determined deviation score; and
… indicative of the updated dynamic risk profile.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer/driver and/or insurance provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “identify specific driving behaviors” and “updating a dynamic risk profile” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions translatable by the processor, the instructions when translated by the processor cause the processor to perform][comprising a mobile device]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[associated with a vehicle]:
generally linking to automotive technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
[utilizing a machine learning model]:
generally linking to machine learning as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
[generating a notification]:
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering.
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0022] use collected data, such as telematics (e.g., from Tesla or other computer linked automobiles via an application programming interface (API), a third party dongle, from using the sensors and location data built into a mobile phone, mobile applications, etc.)
[0030] Telematics—e.g., provided by a computer linked vehicle, etc. or a user's mobile phone.
[0068] Any suitable programming language can be used to implement the routines, methods or programs of embodiments of the invention described herein, including C, C++, Java, JavaScript, HTML, or any other programming or scripting code, etc. ...Communications between computers implementing embodiments can be accomplished using any electronic, optical, radio frequency signals
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 22 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does 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.
For the “generating a notification” step that was considered extra-solution activity and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, the background does not provide any indication that the network appliance is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component that is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Outputting data/notifications: MPEP2106.05(g), Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 23 recites:
“A method of generating a validated driving risk profile …associated with a first user and a second user, the method comprising:
requesting, …an image of a driver's license of the second user;
collecting first telematics data from a first source associated…and second telematics data from a second source …associated with the second user;
correlating the first telematics data and the second telematics data to validate that the second user is operating …
processing, [by the computer system utilizing a machine learning model], the correlated first telematics data and second telematics data to determine a driving behavior score for the second user; and
updating a dynamic risk profile associated …based on the driving behavior score for the second user.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer/driver and/or insurance provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “determine a driving behavior score” and “updating a dynamic risk profile” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[comprising a mobile device] [by a computer system comprising one or more processors]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[for a vehicle] [with the vehicle] [the vehicle]:
generally linking to automotive technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0022] use collected data, such as telematics (e.g., from Tesla or other computer linked automobiles via an application programming interface (API), a third party dongle, from using the sensors and location data built into a mobile phone, mobile applications, etc.)
[0030] Telematics—e.g., provided by a computer linked vehicle, etc. or a user's mobile phone.
[0068] Any suitable programming language can be used to implement the routines, methods or programs of embodiments of the invention described herein, including C, C++, Java, JavaScript, HTML, or any other programming or scripting code, etc. ...Communications between computers implementing embodiments can be accomplished using any electronic, optical, radio frequency signals
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 23 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does 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. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4-8, 12-15, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chintakindi ("DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM WITH MACHINE LEARNING ENGINE TO PROVIDE OUTPUT GENERATION FUNCTIONS", U.S. Publication Number: 20200104876 A1).
Regarding Claim 21,
Chintakindi teaches,
A method of generating a validated dynamic driving risk profile for a vehicle associated with a user, the method comprising: collecting first telematics data from a first source associated with the vehicle
(Chintakindi [0042] generating one or more risk profiles
Chintakindi [0041] in order to provide customized insurance options to a user, detailed information about user behaviors (e.g., frequency of driving, time of day, driving behaviors, frequently visited locations, other lifestyle behaviors, and the like) may be used to generate an accurate quote.
Chintakindi [0142] validate the machine learning datasets.
Chintakindi [0066] sensor data can be transmitted from vehicles 260 via a telematics device)
and second telematics data from a second source comprising a mobile device associated with the user;
(Chintakindi [0002] capturing data via one or more sensors in a mobile device and aggregating that data with other
Chintakindi [0007] data from one or more sensors within a mobile device can be received and processed to determine movement associated with the device.)
receiving, by a computer system comprising one or more processors, the first telematics data and the second telematics data;
(Chintakindi [0042] determining an output based on received sensor and other data
Chintakindi [0068] Telematics devices 263 can receive data from vehicle sensors)
correlating the first telematics data and the second telematics data to validate the accuracy of the collected data by identifying a contrast or consistency between the first source and the second source;
(Chintakindi [0133] In some arrangements, location date contained in a received file may include various inaccuracies, irrelevant data, and the like. ... time and date data associated with location entries may be compared with other user to data (e.g., wearable device data, social media data, or the like) to determine a likelihood that the user is at a same physical location as that particular device.
Chintakindi [0146] Intelligent labels and annotations may be used to efficiently identify and classify data, compare data, and the like.
Chintakindi [0147] The machine learning datasets 712 g may be updated and/or validated based on later-received data.
Chintakindi [0527] interpolation to complete datasets may be used. For instance, some devices, applications, and the like, might not efficiently or consistently capture longitude and latitude data of a user. Accordingly, when location data files are received, they may include location gaps in which longitude and latitude data are missing. Accordingly, machine learning and interpolation may be used to compare patterns in data, identify common trips and fill in any location gaps in the data)
processing, by the computer system utilizing a machine learning model, the correlated first telematics data and second telematics data to identify specific driving behaviors and compare the identified driving behaviors
(Chintakindi [0176] Data associated with user behaviors, activities, and the like, may be collected … This data may also include location data based on GPS within the device… for use in evaluating risk associated with the user… The data provides insight into risk associated with the user
Chintakindi [0244] captured data may then be used to generate insights into user behaviors, verify validity of a user or user-provided data, and the like.
Chintakindi [0314] arrangements described herein can be used together or in combination with other arrangements. For instance, aspects described with respect to one figure may be used in combination
Chintakindi [0011] data may be extracted from the third party computing system. In some examples, the data may include location data corresponding to location entries
Chintakindi [0041] obtain remote sensor data, such as location data, to identify information about the user, driving behaviors, and the like. This may enable accurate and relevant data to be obtained
Chintakindi [0146] Intelligent labels and annotations may be used to efficiently identify and classify data, compare data, and the like.
Chintakindi [0147] The machine learning datasets 712 g may be updated and/or validated based on later-received data.)
against a predefined driving profile or set of driving restrictions to determine a deviation score, the deviation score indicating a degree of deviation from the predefined driving profile or set of driving restrictions;
(Chintakindi [0051] information can then be used to evaluate a risk associated with the driving behaviors of the user. For instance, each type of behavior can, in some examples, be given a score. Each score for each driving behavior (e.g., acceleration, braking, swerving, lane changes, etc.) can then be summed to determine an overall score for the user
Chintakindi [0081] processing the data can determine whether at least a threshold number of hard braking occurrences have taken place within a predefined time period ...data can be processed to determine a typical rate of acceleration for a user,... driving data from a plurality of connected vehicles may be captured and analyzed to “learn” from one use in order to “teach” another user. For instance, driving data may be analyzed using one or more machine learning techniques to analyze both structured and unstructured data to identify patterns, behaviors and the like, that may be used to generate recommendations, outputs, or insights for improved driving.
Chintakindi [0082] risk profile includes a driver score
Chintakindi [0007] travel patterns can be utilized to build a risk profile for the user
Chintakindi [0051] whether the user is generally a hard braker (e.g., a number of hard braking occurrences in a time period is over a threshold), how often the user changes lanes (e.g., in a trip, a day, or the like), whether the user maintains his or her lane, and the like. This information can then be used to evaluate a risk associated with the driving behaviors of the user. For instance, each type of behavior can, in some examples, be given a score. Each score for each driving behavior (e.g., acceleration, braking, swerving, lane changes, etc.))
updating a dynamic risk profile associated with the user based on the determined deviation score; and
(Chintakindi [0236] generated updated insights
Chintakindi [0082] a risk score or likelihood of damage associated with each factor being considered can be calculated)
generating a notification indicative of the updated dynamic risk profile.
(Chintakindi [0042] providing notifications
Chintakindi [0084] notification data can be transmitted to the mobile device. The notification data can include the rate data, the risk profile, and/or any other data of interest to the user. The notification data can be displayed to the user using the mobile device)
Claim 22 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 21.
Claim 23 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 21 with the added limitation of:
requesting, by a computer system comprising one or more processors, an image of a driver's license of the second user;
(Chintakindi [0200] a request for user identifying information may be generated by the offer generation computing platform 710. In some examples, the request for user identifying information may include a request for an image of a photographic identification of a user, such as a driver's license or passport)
with the second user
(Chintakindi [0095] the system can detect multiple different users of a device and can determine travel patterns based on each user's usage of the device)
Regarding Claim 4,
Chintakindi teaches the insurance adjustment of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Chintakindi teaches,
wherein the first collected telematics data or second collected telematics data includes location data.
(Chintakindi [0045] The determination server 110 can further include a sensor data processing module 114...location determination devices, global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) such as global positioning system (GPS)... telematics devices 263 can receive vehicle sensor data, operation data, location data, and/or driving data from vehicle sensors)
Regarding Claim 5,
Chintakindi teaches the insurance adjustment of Claim 4 as described earlier.
Chintakindi teaches,
wherein the location data includes GPS data.
(Chintakindi [0045] The determination server 110 can further include a sensor data processing module 114...location determination devices, global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) such as global positioning system (GPS)... telematics devices 263 can receive vehicle sensor data, operation data, location data, and/or driving data from vehicle sensors)
Regarding Claim 6,
Chintakindi teaches the insurance adjustment of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Chintakindi teaches,
wherein the first collected telematics data or second collected telematics data includes acceleration data.
(Chintakindi [0045] sensors can include accelerometers, gyroscopes)
Regarding Claim 7,
Chintakindi teaches the insurance adjustment of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Chintakindi teaches,
herein the dynamic risk profile is updated based on the time of day that the vehicle is used
(Chintakindi [0093] determine whether an adjustment to the baseline premium should be made...the premium can be increased.
Chintakindi [0335] receive data from the user (e.g., driving data, activity data, and the like) that may be used to further refine a premium or rate provided to the user (e.g., generate a discount, adjust a premium, or the like).
(Chintakindi [0044] Monitoring usage can include evaluating a number of minutes, hours, or the like, the device is activated in a particular time period (e.g., one day, one month, etc.). In some arrangements, monitoring usage can include determining how much time (e.g., minutes, hours, etc.) the mobile device 150 was engaged in a particular type of use and/or the location of the mobile device .... can include determining how much time the mobile device 150 is traveling in a vehicle (such as in a car, train, bus, etc.)
Chintakindi [0057] vehicle driving data and/or behaviors of the user...motion of movement of the device, location information...number of hours in movement...time of day in which the device is used (e.g., devices used late at night or early in the morning, on weekends, etc.))
Regarding Claim 8,
Chintakindi teaches the insurance adjustment of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Chintakindi teaches,
wherein the insurance premium is adjusted
(Chintakindi [0093] determine whether an adjustment to the baseline premium should be made...the premium can be increased.
Chintakindi [0335] receive data from the user (e.g., driving data, activity data, and the like) that may be used to further refine a premium or rate provided to the user (e.g., generate a discount, adjust a premium, or the like).)
based on driving behaviors determined based on the collected real-time telematics data.
(Chintakindi [0066] The data collected by vehicle sensors 261 can be stored and analyzed...sensor data can be transmitted from vehicles 260 via a telematics device
Chintakindi [0099] may be performed in real-time or near real-time in order to facilitate quick output generation)
Claim 12 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chintakindi ("DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM WITH MACHINE LEARNING ENGINE TO PROVIDE OUTPUT GENERATION FUNCTIONS", U.S. Publication Number: 20200104876 A1),in view of Allen (“DYNAMICALLY RECONFIGURABLE INSURANCE PRODUCT”, U.S. Publication Number: 20210166322 A1).
Regarding Claim 18,
Chintakindi and Allen teach the insurance adjustment of Claim 23 as described earlier.
Chintakindi does not teach further comprising associating the second user with the dynamic risk profile on a temporary basis.
Allen teaches,
further comprising associating the second user with the dynamic risk profile on a temporary basis.
(Allen [0031] The dynamic product may, again with customer permission, add temporary ...insurance based upon life events, customer activity or location, and/or other customer or customer-related data.
Allen [0182] may include a determination that the customer is on a trip or vacation, and as a result, coverages for auto and/or travel insurance are adjusted within the dynamically reconfigurable insurance product
Allen [0027] The insurance product may include a single agreement with the customer or alternatively may include several, or even an infinite, number of (short-term or long-term) agreements.
Examiner Notes, the Specification only describes temporary insurance issuance: [0032] In one example, if you have a single driver situation, but you need to permanently add a new driver ... In another example, if you have a single driver situation, but you temporarily need to add a driver (e.g., due to a visitor visiting from out of town), the policy can be updated in real time for the new multi-driver situation. )
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insurance adjustment of Chintakindi to incorporate the insurance policy member addition teachings of Allen where “a family having a teenager getting a driver's license, the family's or parent's auto insurance policy may automatically be adjusted” (Allen [0031]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. insurance policy member addition) to a known concept (i.e. insurance adjustment) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “insurance is added or increased within the dynamically reconfigurable insurance product by the one or more processors” Allen [0183])
Regarding Claim 19,
Chintakindi and Allen teach the insurance adjustment of Claim 23 as described earlier.
Chintakindi does not teach further comprising associating the second user with the dynamic risk profile on a permanent basis.
Allen teaches,
further comprising adding the second user to the insurance policy on a permanent basis.
(Allen [0031] For a family having a teenager getting a driver's license, the family's or parent's auto insurance policy may automatically be adjusted accordingly.
Allen [0031] The dynamic product may, again with customer permission, add ... permanent insurance based upon life events, customer activity or location, and/or other customer or customer-related data.
Allen [0027] The insurance product may include a single agreement with the customer or alternatively may include several, or even an infinite, number of (short-term or long-term) agreements.
Examiner Notes, the Specification describes permanent insurance issuance: [0032] In one example, if you have a single driver situation, but you need to permanently add a new driver (e.g., a child reaches driving age), the policy can be updated in real time for the new multi-driver situation.
[0033] Following is an example where a new driver (permanently or for a short term) is added to a policy, and how the insurance policy gets adjusted once the risk factors are analyzed. In this example, we are trying to either (1) add a new driver permanently to the policy (e.g., a child reaches driving age), or (2) add a new driver for a short term (e.g., a visitor visits for a week).)
Regarding Claim 20,
Chintakindi and Allen teach the insurance adjustment of Claim 23 as described earlier.
Chintakindi teaches,
wherein the one or more reports relating to potential risk associated with the second user include driving records of the second user.
(Chintakindi [0050] a user's driving behaviors can also be used to generate the risk profile associated
Chintakindi [0344] insights and/or offer may be transmitted to the mobile device and displayed to the user.
Chintakindi [0527] aspects described herein are scaled to accommodate additional users)
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on February 2, 2026, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“First, Applicant notes that original independent claims 1, 10, and 16 have been cancelled and replaced with new independent claims 21, 24, and 27 respectively."
Examiner responds:
Examiner could not locate alleged claims 24 and 27. Examiner could only locate independent claims 21, 22, and 23.
The Applicant states:
“The amended claim is not directed to a method of pricing, billing, or contracting (economic concepts). Rather, it is directed to a technical method for validating the fidelity of sensor data through multi-source correlation and quantifying physical driving behavior into a digital risk profile. As the claim no longer recites the fundamental economic practice of calculating a monetary premium, it is not directed to the abstract idea cited in the Office Action."
Examiner responds:
The limitations still clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer/driver and/or insurance provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “generating a validated dynamic driving risk profile” and “updating a dynamic risk profile” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Examiner maintains that “collecting first telematics data from a … source”, " receiving… the first telematics data", and “correlating the first telematics data and the second telematics data” relate to gathering, sharing, and manipulation of data which expresses an Abstract Idea [Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data” was considered part of the abstract idea], and Selecting A Particular Data Source or Type Of Data To Be Manipulated [Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]
The proposed invention solves a business/financial concern relating to insurance premium adjustment. It does not constitute a technological innovation.
The focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers, processors, or machine learning as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers, processors, and machine learning as tools.
Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than “merely applying” off-the-shelf, conventional computers, processors, and machine learning technology for gathering, synthesizing, sending, and presenting the desired information. See MPEP 2106.05(d) well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The Applicant states:
“The claim recites a specific technical improvement to the field of telematics data collection."
Examiner responds:
Examiner maintains that “data collection” relates to gathering, sharing, and manipulation of data which expresses an Abstract Idea [Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data” was considered part of the abstract idea], and Selecting A Particular Data Source or Type Of Data To Be Manipulated [Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]
Even if Examiner were to consider “data collection,” as an additional element, it is regarded as Mere Data Gathering [Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)],
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant's amendments required the application of NO new/additional prior art.
Applicant provided no arguments pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions regarding the rejections under 35 USC § 102/103.
Applicant may also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 102/103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zarbel (“SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HAZARDOUS DRIVING PREVENTION”, U.S. Publication Number: 20210269044 A1) proposes to determine an identity of a driver based on readings of the first sensor; a second sensor; a driver condition determination module in communication with the second sensor, the driver condition determination module is configured to determine a condition of the driver based on readings of the second sensor; and a hazardous driving prevention module in communication with the driver recognition module and driver condition determination, the hazardous driving prevention module is configured to determine and perform one or more actions of a predetermined set of actions based on the determined identity and determined condition of the driver.
Conclusion
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 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 CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Tran, can be reached on (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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695