DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed 12/09/2025.
Claims 1, 18 and 33 are amended
Claims 14-17, 29 and 30 are cancelled.
Claims 1-13, 18-28 and 31-36 are pending.
Claims 1-13, 18-28 and 31-36 have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
The amendments provide descriptions for the already existing limitations and do not change the subject matter of the claims. The rejection is maintained.
103
According to Glachant(Fig 4; ¶ 58, 59, 76, 77, 102) – ‘Billing authority 416 checks metric reports purported to be from trusted computing module 412 and utilizes public key 426 to verify such metric reports…Responsive to receiving the metrics report from the trusted computing module, the private computing platform forwards the metrics report to the billing authority (step 580). The private computing platform makes no changes to the metrics report. Based on the received metrics report, the billing authority can assess road usage fees to the user’.
The Billing authority 416, which is independent of the vehicle and its on-board device, receives a hashed metric report which is based on time, buffer capacity of the trusted computing module, distance driven since the last metric report was generated. The Billing Authority 416 checks and verifies the metric report and assesses the road usage fees.
PNG
media_image1.png
670
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-13, 18-28 and 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (101 Analysis: Step 1). Even if the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (101 Analysis: Step 2a(Prong 1), and if so, Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. (101 Analysis: Step 2a (Prong 2). If additional elements does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception, claim still requires an evaluation of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. If the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (there is an inventive concept in the claim), the claim is eligible. If the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more (there is no inventive concept in the claim), the claim is ineligible. (101 Analysis: Step 2b).
The 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter: a) Mathematical concepts b) Certain methods of organizing human activity and c) Mental processes
Analysis
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 8 is directed to a machine and claim 33 is directed to an article of manufacture.
Step 2a.1– Identifying an Abstract Idea
The claims recite the steps of “receiving… key… determine… charge … determine… charge …encrypt … charge … determine… information … encrypt… information … transmit … charge … and transmit… information ….” The recited limitations fall within the mathematical calculations, for example, calculating tolls based on usage, encrypting the information and sending it. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
See MPEP 2106.
Step 2a.2 – Identifying a Practical Application
The claim does not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment do not amount to practical applications. The claim in directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b
The claim limitations recite “receiving… key… determine… charge … determine… charge …encrypt … charge … determine… information … encrypt… information … transmit … charge … and transmit… information …” are not additional elements and they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. This is also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible.
Viewed as a whole, instructions/method claims recite the concept of mathematical formulations as performed by a generic computer. The claims do not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2-7, 9, 10, 13, 19-24, 26, 27, 32 and 34-36 provide descriptive language surrounding the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
Dependent claims 8, 12, 25 and 31 recite insignificant extra solution activity such as receiving information. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
Dependent claims 11 and 28 discuss functions in more descriptive detail of the steps geared toward the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Therefore, based on case law precedent, the claims are claiming subject matter similar to concepts already identified by the courts as dealing with abstract ideas. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561, U.S. 593, 611 (2010)).
The claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to another technology or technical filed; the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 USC 101 based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims 2-13, 19-28, 31, 32 and 34-36 are also rejected.
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.
Claims 1-13, 18-28 and 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glachant et al (US 20110082797) (“Glachant”), and further in view of Danezis et al (US 20120089494) (“Danezis”).
Regarding claims 1, 18 and 33, Glachant discloses receiving a first encryption key of a first charging entity (¶ 53-70, 98, 102)
Glachant - Billing authority 416 contains authority endorsement key 430. Authority endorsement keys 430 is a unique public-private key pair. Private key 436 of the unique public-private key pair never leaves the trusted computing module 412. Private key 436 is used to hash and sign files. (¶ 67)
determining a first road usage charge associated with the first charging entity based on a first charge policy for road usage associated with the first charging entity (Abstract; ¶ 53-56, 79, 80, 83, 84, 92, 104; claim 1, 10)
Glachant - The private computing platform applies at least one billing algorithm to the original data file to determine a billing charge…The billing algorithms are a hardware or software based logic that transforms global positioning system location information as well as time-based data received from the private computing platform into billing charges. (Abstract; ¶ 104)
determining a total usage charge for road usage associated with at least the first charging entity, the total usage charge being based on the first road usage charge (¶ 53-56, 74-81, 84, 85, 105)
Glachant - Trusted computing module 412 can sign and hash files. Trusted computing module 412 applies metric calculation algorithms to data provided by private computing platform 414 and compares any timestamps... trusted computing module 412 acts as a proxy for billing authority 416. Trusted computing module 412 performs metric calculations, file authentication and audits. (¶ 53, 54 )
encrypting the total usage charge based on the first encryption key to generate an encrypted total usage charge (¶ 59-65, 85, 86, 105, 112 )
Glachant - Private key 424 is used to hash and sign files. Trusted computing module 412 also contains billing algorithms 433. Billing algorithms 433 is a hardware or software based logic that transforms global positioning system location information as well as time-based data received from private computing platform 414 into billing charges. The billing charges are then hashed and signed with private key 424. The billing charges are then sent to private computing platform 414 for eventual communication to billing authority 416. (¶ 59, 65)
determining information associated with the total usage charge (¶ 65, 73-76)
Glachant - Trusted computing module 412 also contains billing algorithms 433. Billing algorithms 433 is a hardware or software based logic that transforms global positioning system location information as well as time-based data received from private computing platform 414 into billing charges. The billing charges are then hashed and signed with private key 424. The billing charges are then sent to private computing platform 414 for eventual communication to billing authority 416. (¶ 65)
encrypting the information associated with the total usage charge based at least in part on the first encryption key to generate encrypted information, wherein the information associated with the total usage charge includes at least trip distances associated with the total usage change (¶ 59-65,70-75, 84-86, 90, 104, 105, 110, 112 )
Glachant - Private key 424 is used to hash and sign files…Trusted computing module 412 also contains billing algorithms 433. Billing algorithms 433 is a hardware or software based logic that transforms global positioning system location information as well as time-based data received from private computing platform 414 into billing charges. The billing charges are then hashed and signed with private key 424. The billing charges are then sent to private computing platform 414 for eventual communication to billing authority 416…Process 500 begins when a private computing platform determines that a metric report is required (step 510). Determination that a metric report is required can be based on, for example, but not limited to, time, buffer capacity of the trusted computing module, distance driven since the last metric report was generated, and requests from the billing authority. (¶ 59, 65, 73 )
transmitting, by the VCD, the encrypted total usage charge to a first network entity; and (Figure 4; ¶ 65-76, 102)
Claim Interpretation- According to the disclosure(¶ 49-51), “As another example, a node may be a network entity 105. As another example, a first node may be configured to communicate with a second node or a third node. In one aspect of this example, the first node may be a UE 115, the second node may be a network entity 105, and the third node may be a UE 115. In another aspect of this example, the first node may be a UE 115, the second node may be a network entity 105, and the third node may be a network entity 105.”
Glachant - Trusted computing module 412 also contains billing algorithms 433. Billing algorithms 433 is a hardware or software based logic that transforms global positioning system location information as well as time-based data received from private computing platform 414 into billing charges. The billing charges are then hashed and signed with private key 424. The billing charges are then sent to private computing platform 414 for eventual communication to billing authority 416. (¶ 65)
transmitting, by the VCD, the encrypted information to a second network entity for verifying the encrypted total usage charge, wherein the second network entity verifies the encrypted total usage charge, and wherein the second network entity is independent from the first network entity (Figure 4; ¶ 58, 59, 65, 69, 70-77, 87, 102, 106, 112)
Glachant - process 1000 begins by receiving a request for the metric calculations or remote audits from a private computing platform (step 1010). Responsive to receiving the request, process 1000 verifies the authenticity of the request (step 1020)… Billing authority 416 is a data processing system, such as one of server 104 and server 106 of FIG. 1. Billing authority 416 is vested with the powers and responsibilities to manage the road use charging solution…The metrics report is a receipt for road usage, as calculated, according to the billing algorithms stored on the trusted computing module. The metrics report is hashed and signed with private key of the trusted computing module….Billing authority 416 checks metric reports purported to be from trusted computing module 412 and utilizes public key 426 to verify such metric reports…Responsive to receiving the metrics report from the trusted computing module, the private computing platform forwards the metrics report to the billing authority (step 580). The private computing platform makes no changes to the metrics report. Based on the received metrics report, the billing authority can assess road usage fees to the user (¶ 58, 59, 76, 77, 102)
Glachant does not disclose receiving a first encryption key of a first charging entity for encryption of road usage charges associated with the first charging entity; and wherein the information associated with the total usage charge is encrypted using additive homomorphic encryption (AHE), fully homomorphic encryption (FHE) scheme, or multi-party computation (MPC).
Danezis teaches receiving a first encryption key of a first charging entity for encryption of road usage charges associated with the first charging entity (¶ 57, 69, 70, 87).
Danezis - the provider is able to issue new pricing policies. To ensure that the bill generator uses the most recent pricing policy the provider may generate 318 a new key pair. The bill generator is informed of the new public key and then the new pricing policy is signed with the new key and sent 322 to the bill generator. A validity period may be included in the pricing policy (¶ 57)
and wherein the information associated with the total usage charge is encrypted using additive homomorphic encryption (AHE), fully homomorphic encryption (FHE) scheme, or multi-party computation (MPC) (¶ 23, 68-70, 73-80).
Danezis - The provider computes parameters for an additively homomorphic commitment scheme and sends those parameters to the meter and to the bill generator. (¶ 69)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Glachant and Danezis in order to provide further protection for user information in a metering transaction (Danezis; ¶ 1-4).
Regarding claims 2, 19 and 34, Glachant discloses wherein the information associated with the total usage charge is used to calculate the total usage charge (¶ 53-56, 65, 73, 82).
Regarding claims 3, 20 and 35, Glachant discloses wherein the information associated with the total usage charge includes at least one of: a respective number of distance traveled values associated with a charged area and charge contributing to the total usage charge, a respective amount of time spent in one or more charged areas associated with the total usage charge, or an odometer value for a vehicle (¶ 73-77).
Regarding claims 4, 21 and 36, Glachant discloses wherein the encrypted total usage charge is transmitted to the first network entity with an indication of a respective charging entity identification associated with each charge associated with the total usage charge (¶ 65, 73-77, 89, 90, 102).
Regarding claims 5 and 22, Glachant discloses wherein the encrypted total usage charge includes a charge amount and at least one of an identifier or charging policy identification associated with individual road usage charges of the total usage charge (¶ 73-77, 89, 90).
Regarding claims 6 and 23, Danezis teaches wherein the first encryption key is associated with an additive homomorphic encryption (AHE), a fully homomorphic encryption (FHE) scheme, or a multi-party computation (MPC) (Abstract; ¶ 23, 24, 69, 70, 79, 80, 88).
Regarding claims 7 and 24, Glachant discloses wherein one or more other encryption keys are received for one or more other charging entities for reporting, one or more other road usage charges (¶ 53-73). Danezis teaches using homomorphic encryption (Abstract; ¶ 23, 24, 69, 70, 79, 80, 88). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Glachant and Danezis in order to provide further protection for user information in a metering transaction (Danezis; ¶ 1-4).
Regarding claims 8 and 25, Glachant discloses receiving, from the first charging entity or from a service provider or network entity associated with one or more charging entities, the first charge policy associated with the first charging entity (¶ 53-70, 102; claim 1).
Regarding claims 9 and 26, Glachant discloses wherein the first charge policy includes one or more parameters enabling a determination of the first road usage charge at the VCD based at least in part on: one or more locations of a vehicle associated with the VCD, or a time at which the vehicle was at or between locations (Abstract; ¶ 65, 70, 75-81, 90, 115-117; claim 16, 17).
Regarding claims 10 and 27, Glachant discloses wherein the one or more parameters include roadway map information that enables the VCD to associate at least one of vehicle location, distance, or time data with the first charge policy to determine the first road usage charge (Abstract; ¶ 65, 70, 75-81, 90, 115-117; claim 16, 17).
Regarding claims 11 and 28, Glachant discloses cryptographically verifying that the first charge policy is valid prior to determining the first road usage charge using the first charge policy (¶ 59, 60, 87-90, 95-97; claim 1, 10).
Regarding claims 12 and 31, Glachant discloses receiving one or more updates to one or more charge policies based at least in part on: a location of a vehicle associated with the VCD, or based on an anonymous request from the VCD as a function of a current location or one or more planned locations of the vehicle associated with the VCD (¶ 61, 115-117; claim 9, 16).
Regarding claims 13 and 32, Glachant discloses wherein the first charge policy includes one or more charging parameters that are based at least in part on: a vehicle type of a vehicle associated with the VCD, or a capability of the VCD to provide predefined inputs to a road usage charge according to the first charge policy (¶ 70-77).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Commons, (US 9,015,093) teaches Neural networks and tracking vehicle travel for tolls, costs, etc.
Albano et al. (US 9,600,443) teaches tracking vehicle travel
Anderson (US 9,800,517) teaches homomorphic encryption of transmitted data sets
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ILSE I IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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, NEHA H PATEL can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/ILSE I IMMANUEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights