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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 12/04/2025.
Claims 7, 15 and 17-22 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
5. Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16 are currently pending and are considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16 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. Representative claim 1, recites a computer-implemented method , which is a statutory class, the computer-implemented method for using multiple vehicle telematic data sources to identify a suitable vehicle type for a driver, the computer-implemented method comprising:
collecting, by a mobile electronic device of the driver or a passenger in a vehicle, operational data indicating how the driver operated the vehicle;
generating , by one or more electronic subsystems located on or in the vehicle, alert responsiveness data indicating how responsive the driver is to one or more types of vehicle alerts;
receiving, by one or more processors of a server, the operational data and the alert
responsiveness data from one or both of (i) the one or more electronic subsystems and (ii) the mobile electronic device;
analyzing, by the one or more processors, the operational data to determine that one or
more criteria indicative of capability of the suggested vehicle type are met;
analyzing, by the one or more processors, the alert responsiveness data to determine
that one or more criteria indicative of reliability of the suggested vehicle type are met;
identifying, by the one or more processors and based on determining that the one or more criteria indicative of capability of the suggested vehicle type are met and
determining that the one or more criteria indicative of reliability of the suggested vehicle type are met, and
causing, by the one or more processors, an indication of the suggested vehicle type to
be displayed to a user.
The steps of
collecting, by a mobile electronic device of the driver or a passenger in a vehicle, operational data indicating how the driver operated the vehicle;
generating , by one or more electronic subsystems located on or in the vehicle, alert responsiveness data indicating how responsive the driver is to one or more types of vehicle alerts;
receiving, by one or more processors of a server, the operational data and the alert
responsiveness data from one or both of (i) the one or more electronic subsystems and (ii) the mobile electronic device;
analyzing, by the one or more processors, the operational data to determine that one or
more criteria indicative of capability of the suggested vehicle type are met;
analyzing, by the one or more processors, the alert responsiveness data to determine
that one or more criteria indicative of reliability of the suggested vehicle type are met;
identifying, by the one or more processors and based on determining that the one or more criteria indicative of capability of the suggested vehicle type are met and
determining that the one or more criteria indicative of reliability of the suggested vehicle type are met, and
causing, by the one or more processors, an indication of the suggested vehicle type to be displayed to a user,
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a method for identifying a suitable vehicle type for a driver. The above identified method steps recite commercial interactions such as sales activities and/or tailored personalized marketing relating to providing data associated with the person.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction such as tailored personalized marketing, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of one or more electronic subsystems, a mobile electronic device, a memory and one or more processors. The one or more electronic subsystems, a server, a mobile electronic device, a processor, a memory and one or more processor of a server are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of collecting, operational data;
generating , alert responsiveness data; receiving, the operational data and the alert
responsiveness data; analyzing, the operational data; analyzing, the alert responsiveness data; identifying the one or more criteria indicative of capability of the suggested vehicle type are met and determining that the one or more criteria indicative of reliability of the suggested vehicle type are met, and causing, an indication of the suggested vehicle type to be displayed to a user) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of
one or more electronic subsystems, a server, a mobile electronic device, a processor, a memory and one or more processor of a server amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are similar to the additional elements found by courts to be mere instructions to apply an exception because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery to perform an existing process such as: a common business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 US 208, 223; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334); generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the menu to the second location as performed by a generic computer components (Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44); and providing a user with tailored information like advertisements based on information known about the user such as a location, address, or personal characteristics and a time of day is a fundamental practice long prevalent in our system); In re Morsa, 809 F. App’x 913, 917 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. That is, one or more electronic subsystems, a server, a mobile electronic device, a processor, a memory and one or more processor of a server, performing commercial interactions including: collecting, operational data; generating , alert responsiveness data; receiving, the operational data and the alert responsiveness data; analyzing, the operational data; analyzing, the alert responsiveness data; identifying the one or more criteria indicative of capability of the suggested vehicle type are met and determining that the one or more criteria indicative of reliability of the suggested vehicle type are met, and causing, an indication of the suggested vehicle type to be displayed to a user, amount to mere instructions to apply the steps to a computer comprising of a processor.
Thus, independent claims 1 and 9 are not eligible.
Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed on 12/04/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See new 101 rejection of amended independent claims 1 and 9 above.
Conclusion
9. Prior art: Relevant prior art found:
10. Toprak et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0337573) discloses managing a vehicle including at least one control unit may include a user subsystem communicatively coupled to the at least one control unit and operative to collect diagnostic data from at least one control module of the vehicle, and a service subsystem communicatively coupled to the user subsystem and operative to receive at least a portion of the diagnostic data from the user subsystem, determine the health of the vehicle based on the at least a portion of the diagnostic data, and use the determined health of the vehicle to facilitate at least one of maintenance of the vehicle and transfer of the ownership of the vehicle (see at least paragraph 0005).
11. Fields et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,532,187) discloses autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle functionality, including driverless operation, accident avoidance, or collision warning systems. These autonomous vehicle operation features may either assist the vehicle operator to more safely or efficiently operate a vehicle or may take full control of vehicle operation under some or all circumstances. The present embodiments may also facilitate risk assessment and premium determination for vehicle insurance policies covering vehicles with autonomous operation features. For instance, a consumer may opt-in to a rewards program that rewards them, such as in the form of insurance discounts, for sharing data related to their vehicles and/or autonomous features with an insurance provider (see at least the Brief Summary (5).
12. Sanchez et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,738,523) discloses assessing risk associated with a driver of a vehicle includes receiving a plurality of risk variables associated with a driver, the plurality of risk variables being gathered when the driver operates the vehicle. A driver is then identified based on the plurality of risk variables, and a risk profile is developed for the driver. The development of the risk profile involves determining the risk associated with at least some of the risk variables and generating a risk index, the risk index being a collective measure of risk associated with the driver (see at least the Abstract).
13. Prior art found after an updated search:
14. Mathur et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0364821) discloses analyzing driver behavior based on telematics data are disclosed. In an example, a probability of a user driving a vehicle is computed and a risk score is generated to develop at least one driver profile based on the probability. Further, routes taken by said user driving said vehicle are clustered to generate enhanced driver profile and using the clustered output to develop dynamic intelligent contexts for each said route and adding contextual intelligence messages to customize said risk score. Furthermore, the routes taken by the said user in real time are predicted. In addition, a missing route is identified through imputation of missed routes to compute annualized mileage, and a missing distance is imputed in an analysis of at least one trip of the driver in the vehicle. Also, independent trips are stitched based on at least one recommendation from an analytics engine (see at least the Abstract).
15. The combination of the prior art mentioned above does not disclose the invention
with respect to the noted limitation, "generating , by one or more electronic subsystems
located on or in the vehicle, alert responsiveness data indicating how responsive the
driver is to one or more types of vehicle alerts; analyzing, by the one or more processors, the operational data to determine that one or more criteria indicative of capability of the suggested vehicle type are met; analyzing, by the one or more processors, the alert responsiveness data to determine that one or more criteria indicative of reliability of the suggested vehicle type are met; identifying, by the one or more processors and based on determining that the one or more criteria indicative of capability of the suggested vehicle type are met and determining that the one or more criteria indicative of reliability of the suggested vehicle type are met," and as well
the combination does not fully disclose the additional claimed limitations of the invention
as viewed in accordance with the identified limitation.
16. 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARILYN G MACASIANO whose telephone number is (571)270-5205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12:00-9:00 pm.
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, llana Spar can be reached on 571)270-7537. 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.
/MARILYN G MACASIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622 01/06/2026