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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 04, 2025 has been entered.
This is the Non-Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed on December 04, 2025 for Application No. 18/540,644 filed on December 14, 2023, title: “Autonomous Vehicle Operation Feature Monitoring and Evaluation Of Effectiveness”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were pending. By the 12/04/2025 Response, claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended, and no claim has been added or cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been examined.
Priority
This application was filed on 12/14/2023 and is a CON of US Application No. 17/679,452 filed on 02/24/2022 (Patented No. 11,869,092) and is a CON of US Application No. 16/685,319 filed on 11/15/2019 (Patented No. 11,288,751) which is a CON of US Application No. 14/713,249, filed on 05/15/2015 (Patented No. 10,529,027) which claims the benefits of US Provisional Applications No. 62/056,893 filed on 09/29/2014, 62/047,307 filed on 09/08/2014, 62/035,867 filed on 08/11/2014, 62/036,090 filed on 08/11/2014, 62/035,983 filed on 08/11/2014, 62/035,980 filed on 08/11/2014, 62/035,878 filed on 08/11/2014, 62/035,859 filed on 08/11/2014, 62/035,660 filed on 08/11/2014, 62/035,723 filed on 08/11/2014, 62/035,669 filed on 08/11/2014, 62/035,729 filed on 08/11/2014, 62/035,832 filed on 08/11/2014, 62/035,780 filed on 08/11/2014, 62/035,769 filed on 08/11/2014, 62/018,169 filed on 06/27/2014, and 62/000,878 filed on 05/20/2014.
For the purpose of examination, the 05/20/2014 is considered to be the effective filing date.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of US Patent No. 11,869,092, claims 1-18 of US Patent No. 11,288,751, and claims 1-16 of US Patent No. 10,529,027. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present Application and the Patents are directed to the method for monitoring and evaluating a vehicle having one or more autonomous operation features for controlling the vehicle. Also, the present Application and Patents have the same inventors and are commonly owned.
Application No. 18/540,644
Patent No. 11,869,092
Claim 8, A computer-implemented method for monitoring and evaluating a vehicle having one or more autonomous operation features for controlling the vehicle, the computer-implemented method performed by one or more processors of an on-board computer configured to control operation of the vehicle and in communication with one or more sensors of the vehicle, the computer-implemented method comprising:
Claim 1, A computer-implemented method for monitoring and evaluating a vehicle having one or more autonomous operation features for controlling the vehicle, comprising:
control operation of the vehicle by executing a plurality of control decisions made by the one or more autonomous operation features of the vehicle based upon data received from the one or more sensors of the vehicle;
while controlling operation of the vehicle, generating, by the one or more processors, operating data including (a) the plurality of control decisions made by the one or more autonomous operation features of the vehicle, the plurality of control decisions including (i) one or more implemented control decisions implemented to control the vehicle and (ii) one or more unimplemented control decisions generated by the one or more autonomous operation features but not implemented to control the vehicle, and (b) for each of the one or more implemented control decisions, an actual vehicle response of the vehicle detected by the one or more sensors of the vehicle; and
generating, by the one or more processors of an on-board computer configured to control operation of the vehicle, operating data regarding operation of the vehicle, wherein the operating data includes (i) information from one or more sensors disposed within the vehicle, (ii) information regarding the one or more autonomous operation features, and (iii) a plurality of control decisions generated by the one or more autonomous operation features in response to sensor data from the one or more sensors, wherein the plurality of control decisions includes, for each of a plurality of times during vehicle operation: (i) an implemented control decision implemented to control the vehicle and (ii) one or more unimplemented control decisions generated by the one or more autonomous operation features but not implemented to control the vehicle, the unimplemented control decisions indicating alternative control actions for controlling the vehicle; and
determining, by the one or more processors, an effectiveness of the one or more autonomous features by comparing (i) actual vehicle responses of the vehicle resulting from the implemented control decisions and (ii) predicted responses of the vehicle corresponding to the unimplemented control decisions.
determining, by the one or more processors, at least one risk level indicative of effectiveness of operation of the one or more autonomous operation features in controlling the vehicle based at least in part upon the operating data, including an indication of operating conditions of the vehicle in the information from the one or more sensors.
Application No. 18/540,644
Patent No. 11,288,751
Claim 8, A computer-implemented method for monitoring and evaluating a vehicle having one or more autonomous operation features for controlling the vehicle, the computer-implemented method performed by one or more processors of an on-board computer configured to control operation of the vehicle and in communication with one or more sensors of the vehicle, the computer-implemented method comprising:
Claim 1, A computer-implemented method for monitoring and evaluating a vehicle having one or more autonomous operation features for controlling the vehicle, comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors, a baseline effectiveness profile indicating effectiveness of the one or more autonomous operation features in controlling operation of vehicles;
control operation of the vehicle by executing a plurality of control decisions made by the one or more autonomous operation features of the vehicle based upon data received from the one or more sensors of the vehicle;
while controlling operation of the vehicle, generating, by the one or more processors, operating data including (a) the plurality of control decisions made by one or more autonomous operation features of the vehicle, the plurality of control decisions including (i) one or more implemented control decisions implemented to control the vehicle and (ii) one or more unimplemented control decisions generated by the one or more autonomous operation features but not implemented to control the vehicle, and (b) for each of the one or more implemented control decisions, an actual vehicle response of the vehicle detected by the one or more sensors of the vehicle; and
generating, by the one or more processors of an on-board computer configured to control operation of the vehicle, operating data regarding operation of the vehicle, wherein the operating data includes (i) information from one or more sensors disposed within the vehicle, (ii) information regarding the one or more autonomous operation features, and (iii) a plurality of control decisions generated by the one or more autonomous operation features in response to sensor data from the one or more sensors, wherein the plurality of control decisions includes, for each of a plurality of times during vehicle operation: (i) an implemented control decision implemented to control the vehicle and (ii) one or more unimplemented control decisions generated by the one or more autonomous operation features but not implemented to control the vehicle, the unimplemented control decisions indicating alternative control actions for controlling the vehicle; and
determining, by the one or more processors, an effectiveness of the one or more autonomous features by comparing (i) actual vehicle responses of the vehicle resulting from the implemented control decisions and (ii) predicted responses of the vehicle corresponding to the unimplemented control decisions.
determining, by the one or more processors, at least one risk level indicative of effectiveness of operation of the one or more autonomous operation features in controlling the vehicle based at least in part upon the baseline effectiveness profile and the operating data, including an indication of operating conditions of the vehicle in the information from the one or more sensors.
Application No. 18/540,644
Patent No. 10,529,027
Claim 8, A computer-implemented method for monitoring and evaluating a vehicle having one or more autonomous operation features for controlling the vehicle, the computer-implemented method performed by one or more processors of an on-board computer configured to control operation of the vehicle and in communication with one or more sensors of the vehicle, the computer-implemented method comprising:
Claim 1, A computer-implemented method for monitoring and evaluating a vehicle having one or more autonomous operation features for controlling the vehicle, comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a baseline effectiveness profile indicating effectiveness of the one or more autonomous operation features in controlling operation of vehicles;
control operation of the vehicle by executing a plurality of control decisions made by the one or more autonomous operation features of the vehicle based upon data received from the one or more sensors of the vehicle;
while controlling operation of the vehicle, generating, by the one or more processors, operating data including (a) the plurality of control decisions made by one or more autonomous operation features of the vehicle, the plurality of control decisions including (i) one or more implemented control decisions implemented to control the vehicle and (ii) one or more unimplemented control decisions generated by the one or more autonomous operation features but not implemented to control the vehicle, and (b) for each of the one or more implemented control decisions, an actual vehicle response of the vehicle detected by the one or more sensors of the vehicle; and
generating, by one or more processors of an on-board computer configured to control operation of the vehicle, operating data regarding operation of the vehicle, wherein the operating data includes (i) information from one or more sensors disposed within the vehicle, (ii) information regarding the one or more autonomous operation features, and (iii) a plurality of control decisions generated by the one or more autonomous operation features in response to sensor data from the one or more sensors, wherein the plurality of control decisions includes, for each of a plurality of times during vehicle operation: (i) an implemented control decision implemented to control the vehicle and (ii) one or more unimplemented control decisions generated by the one or more autonomous operation features but not implemented to control the vehicle, the unimplemented control decisions indicating alternative control actions for controlling the vehicle;
recording, in a non-transitory computer-readable memory associated with the on-board computer, a log of the generated operating data, including the plurality of control decisions;
receiving, by one or more processors, actual loss data regarding losses associated with insurance policies covering a plurality of other vehicles having the one or more autonomous operation features;
determining, by the one or more processors, an effectiveness of the one or more autonomous features by comparing (i) actual vehicle responses of the vehicle resulting from the implemented control decisions and (ii) predicted responses of the vehicle corresponding to the unimplemented control decisions.
determining, by one or more processors, at least one risk level indicative of effectiveness of operation of the one or more autonomous operation features in controlling the vehicle based at least in part upon the baseline effectiveness profile and the recorded log of the operating data, including an indication of operating conditions of the vehicle in the information from the one or more sensors and the information regarding the one or more autonomous operation features; determining, by one or more processors, responses of the vehicle to the implemented control decisions and predicted responses of the vehicle to the unimplemented control decisions; and
adjusting, by one or more processors, the at least one risk level based upon the received actual loss data, the responses of the vehicle to the implemented control decisions, and the predicted responses of the vehicle to the unimplemented control decisions.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 1-7 recite a computer system for monitoring and evaluating a vehicle having one or more autonomous operations features for controlling the vehicle comprising processors, claims 8-14 recites a computer-implemented method for monitoring and evaluating a vehicle having one or more autonomous operations features for controlling the vehicle comprising a series of steps, and claims 15-20 recite a non-transitory computer-readable computer media having computer-executable instructions embodied in processor onboard a vehicle to control operation of the vehicle. Therefore, the claims are directed to a machine, process, and manufactured product which fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 8, A computer-implemented method for monitoring and evaluating a vehicle having one or more autonomous operation features for controlling the vehicle, the computer-implemented method performed by one or more processors of an on-board computer configured to control operation of the vehicle and in communication with one or more sensors of the vehicle, the computer-implemented method comprising:
control operation of the vehicle by executing a plurality of control decisions made by the one or more autonomous operation features of the vehicle based upon data received from the one or more sensors of the vehicle;
while controlling operation of the vehicle, generating, by the one or more processors, operating data including (a) the plurality of control decisions made by one or more autonomous operation features of the vehicle, the plurality of control decisions including (i) one or more implemented control decisions implemented to control the vehicle and (ii) one or more unimplemented control decisions generated by the one or more autonomous operation features but not implemented to control the vehicle, and (b) for each of the one or more implemented control decisions, an actual vehicle response of the vehicle detected by the one or more sensors of the vehicle; and
determining, by the one or more processors, an effectiveness of the one or more autonomous features by comparing (i) actual vehicle responses of the vehicle resulting from the implemented control decisions and (ii) predicted responses of the vehicle corresponding to the unimplemented control decisions (Insurance premium determination based on the comparison – A method of organizing human activity under the subcategories of a fundamental economic practice (insurance) and commercial interaction (business relations)).
The above limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity for “monitoring and evaluating a vehicle having one or more operation features for controlling a vehicle” as recited in the preamble. More specifically, the claim recites fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions including monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the autonomous operation features of a vehicle by: controlling the operations of the vehicle by the autonomous operation features of the vehicle based on the received data from the sensors of the vehicle, while controlling operation of the vehicle, generating the operating data including (a) the control decisions made by the autonomous operation features of the vehicle, the control decisions including (i) implemented control decisions implemented to control the vehicle and (ii) unimplemented control decisions generated by the autonomous operation features but not implemented to control the vehicle, and (b) for each of the implemented control decisions, an actual vehicle response of the vehicle detected by the sensors of the vehicle; and determining an effectiveness of the autonomous features by comparing (i) actual vehicle responses of the vehicle resulting from the implemented control decisions and (ii) predicted responses of the vehicle corresponding to the unimplemented control decisions.
The claim recites a process corresponds to concepts of monitoring and evaluating a vehicle’s operating data and control decision to determine an effectiveness of the autonomous operation features by comparing the actual vehicle responses of the vehicle resulting from the implemented control decisions and the predicted responses of the vehicle corresponding to the unimplemented control decisions, which is a fundamental economic practice (i.e., hedging, insurance, mitigating risk - see claims 6, 13, and 20) and commercial interaction (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations - see claims 6, 13, and 20).
If the claim limitations (“generating … operating data …” and “determining an effectiveness of the … autonomous operation features by comparing …”), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of a fundamental economic practice or commercial interaction, then they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed to determine a premium associated with a vehicle insurance policy).
Also, the newly added limitation “control operation of the vehicle by … more sensors of the vehicle” is the pre-solution activity for the next step “while controlling …” and is additional details for the next step “while controlling …” of the claim which further narrow the scope of the claim, but does not change the 101 analysis. Further narrowing the scope of an abstract idea does not change the analysis since a narrower abstract idea does not make it any less abstract. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites a computer system and Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable computer medium with the same elements and limitations as discussed in Claim 8. The mere nominal recitation of generic computer components (such as a computer system comprising the onboard processors, sensors, memories and non-transitory programmed instructions) do not take the claims out of the abstract idea. Therefore, these claims also are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The claims (1, 8, and 15) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite the additional elements of: one or more processors of an on-board computer configured to control operation of the vehicle, a vehicle having one or more autonomous operation features for controlling the vehicle, a non-transitory computer-readable memory associated with the on-board computer and storing executable instructions that when executed by the processors causing the computer system to perform the abstract idea identified above. These additional elements as recited are generic computer elements that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. The mere nominal recitation of generic computer components, such as processors, sensors, memories and non-transitory programmed instructions, do not take the claims out of the abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of the server computer system comprising processors, sensors, and memories. All the computer elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic processor performing generic computer functions of receiving/transmitting communications, processing information, querying the database) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This is supported in paragraphs 75-93 and Figures 1-2 of the Specification (see US Publication No. 2024/0127362-A1). Accordingly, the 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. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2-No, the claims are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
The independent claims (1, 8, and 15) do not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, 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 using a computer to perform the generating and determining functions as claimed amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 depend on claims 1, 8, and 15, and thus include all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15. Therefore, the dependent claims also recite the same abstract idea of the independent claims.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 – recite additional limitations “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: collect information from the one or more sensors disposed onboard the vehicle; and determine the actual vehicle responses resulting from the implemented control decisions based upon the collected information from the one or more sensors.”. (The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g., additional detailed instructions for the collecting and determining steps (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 – recite additional limitations “wherein the one or more unimplemented control decisions include at least one control decision not implemented because the autonomous operation feature was disabled.”. (The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g., additional details for the unimplemented control decisions (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 – recite additional limitations “wherein: each entry in a log of the operating data includes a timestamp associated with the operating data, including information regarding at least one of the following: date, time, location, vehicle environment, vehicle condition, autonomous operation feature settings, or autonomous operation feature configuration information.”. (The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g., additional details for each entry in a log of the operating data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 5, 12, and 19 – recite additional limitations “wherein the processor is further configured to: receive external data regarding the vehicle environment for each entry in the log of the operating data based upon the timestamp associated with the entry, including information regarding at least one of the following: road conditions, weather conditions, nearby traffic conditions, type of road, construction conditions, presence of pedestrians, presence of other obstacles, or availability of autonomous communications from external sources; and determine the effectiveness further based at least in part upon the external data regarding the vehicle environment.”. (The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g., additional details on receiving external data and determining the effectiveness (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 6, 13, and 20 – recite additional limitations “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive a request for a quote of a premium associated with a vehicle insurance policy; determine the premium associated with the vehicle insurance policy based at least in part upon the determined effectiveness; and present an option to purchase the vehicle insurance policy to a customer associated with the vehicle.”. (The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g., additional details for the processors to receive a request, determine the premium, and present an option to purchase vehicle insurance (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 7 and 14 – recite additional limitations “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the effectiveness further based upon actual loss data relating to the actual vehicle responses resulting from the implemented control decisions.”. (The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g., additional details for the processors to determine the effectiveness based upon actual loss data relating the actual vehicle responses (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
The dependent claims do no more than providing additional detailed instructions and administrative requirements for the functional steps already recited in the independent claims. Every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions has been considered. No inventive concept is found in the claims. The claims further describe the business relations of the certain method of organizing human activity (abstract idea) and do not include additional elements other than those of claims 1, 8, and 15 to provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims is on a method of monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the autonomous operation features of a vehicle. The claims are not directed to a new type of processor, a computer network, or a system memory, nor do they provide a method for processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independent abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
Applicant’s claimed invention is “a business solution” to “a business problem” and this is supported in the Applicant’s Specification in paragraphs 2-6:
[0002] The present disclosure generally relates to systems and methods for determining risk, pricing, and offering vehicle insurance policies, specifically vehicle insurance policies where vehicle operation is partially or fully automated.
[0003] Vehicle or automobile insurance exists to provide financial protection against physical damage and/or bodily injury resulting from traffic accidents and against liability that could arise therefrom. Typically, a customer purchases a vehicle insurance policy for a policy rate having a specified term. In exchange for payments from the insured customer, the insurer pays for damages to the insured which are caused by covered perils, acts, or events as specified by the language of the insurance policy. The payments from the insured are generally referred to as “premiums,” and typically are paid on behalf of the insured over time at periodic intervals. An insurance policy may remain “in-force” while premium payments are made during the term or length of coverage of the policy as indicated in the policy. An insurance policy may “lapse” (or have a status or state of “lapsed”), for example, when premium payments are not being paid or if the insured or the insurer cancels the policy.
[0004] Premiums may be typically determined based upon a selected level of insurance coverage, location of vehicle operation, vehicle model, and characteristics or demographics of the vehicle operator. The characteristics of a vehicle operator that affect premiums may include age, years operating vehicles of the same class, prior incidents involving vehicle operation, and losses reported by the vehicle operator to the insurer or a previous insurer. Past and current premium determination methods do not, however, account for use of autonomous vehicle operating features. The present embodiments may, inter alia, alleviate this and/or other drawbacks associated with conventional techniques.
[0005] The present embodiments may be related to 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.
[0006] In accordance with the described embodiments, the disclosure herein generally addresses systems and methods for determining risk levels associated with one or more autonomous (and/or semi-autonomous) operation features for controlling a vehicle or assisting a vehicle operator in controlling the vehicle. A server or other computer system may present test input signals to the one or more autonomous operation features to test the response of the features in a virtual environment. This virtual testing may include presentation of fixed inputs or may include a simulation of a dynamic virtual environment in which a virtual vehicle is controlled by the one or more autonomous operation features. The one or more autonomous operation features generate output signals that may then be used to determine the effectiveness of the control decisions by predicting the responses of vehicles to the output signals. Risk levels associated with the effectiveness of the autonomous operation features may be used to determine a premium for an insurance policy associated with the vehicle, which may be determined by reference to a risk category.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
In view of Applicant’s 12/04/2025 and 07/07/2025 Responses, the double patenting rejection is maintained until the claims are allowable. At that time, Applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer or otherwise traverse the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Pending Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
Step 2A, Prong One:
Per pages 9-10 of the Remarks, Applicant recites the steps of “control operation …” and “while controlling operation …” of the independent claims and argues that these recitations do not fall withing any of the enumerated categories of abstract ideas.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the 101 analysis above, the pending claims are still directed to an abstract idea of a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. The focus of the claims is on a method of monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the autonomous operation features of a vehicle. This is a fundamental economic practice (i.e., hedging, insurance, mitigating risk - see claims 6, 13, and 20) and commercial interaction (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations - see claims 6, 13, and 20). Applicant’s claimed invention is “a business solution” to “a business problem” and this is supported in the Applicant’s Specification in paragraphs 2-6. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Per page11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technological problem exists in accurately determining effectiveness metrics for control features of a vehicle by utilizing the processors that control operation of the vehicle by executing control decisions based upon sensor data
and generate additional operating data regarding both implemented and unimplemented control decisions and detected vehicle responses resulting from the implemented control decisions. This generation of data while controlling operation of the vehicle enables the processors to more accurately determine an effectiveness of the autonomous features.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the 101 analysis above, the claim recites the limitations “controlling …”, “while controlling operation of the vehicle …”, and “determine … an effectiveness of the one or more autonomous features …” are directed to an abstract idea because it relates to insurance premium determination and is a Method of Organizing Human Activity. The focus of the claims is on a method of monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the autonomous operation features of a vehicle. This is a fundamental economic practice (i.e., hedging, insurance, mitigating risk - see claims 6, 13, and 20) and commercial interaction (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations - see claims 6, 13, and 20) and is supported by Applicant’s Specification in paragraphs 2-6. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Claims Are Directed to “Significantly More” Than the Abstract Idea
Step 2B:
Per pages 12-13 of the Remarks, Applicant cites the whole Claim 1, the Berkheimer Memo, and argues that the claim elements as a whole are not well understood, routine, and conventional. Applicant also argues that the last Office Action provides no indication that the recitations of the pending claims are well understood, routine, or conventional in computer systems.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the 101 analysis in the last and current Office Actions, the claims when viewed as a whole do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims do not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
Further, the Berkheimer Memo requires the Examiner to use one of the four options for supporting his clarification that an additional element (or combination of elements) are well-understood, routine, and conventional. The first option is: 1. A citation to an express statement in the specification ... that demonstrates the well- understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). This is exactly what the Examiner did in the last Office Action (see paragraphs 16-17 in pages 12-13) and the current Office Action (see paragraphs 18-19 above).
The Examiner has provided a detailed two-step analysis explaining why the claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself in according to USPTO guidance in the last Office Action and in the current Office Action. Further, there is no requirement that examiners must provide evidentiary support in every case before a conclusion can be made that a claim is directed to an abstract idea. See, e.g., para. IV “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” to 2014 Interim Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility (2014 IEG), 79 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014).
The courts consider the determination of whether a claim is eligible (which involves identifying whether an exception such as an abstract idea is being claimed) to be a question of law. Accordingly, courts do not rely on evidence that a claimed concept is a judicial exception, and in most cases resolve the ultimate legal conclusion on eligibility without making any factual findings.
In conclusion, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 is MAINTAINED.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
An updated prior art search did not identify any art that, individually or in combination with others, teaches each and every elements of the claims at this time.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695