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 action is in reply to the amendment filed on 02/26/2026.
Claim 5 is previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are currently amended.
Claims 1-4, 6-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/26/2026 with respect to 35.U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35.U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claims 1-4, 6-21 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the “Here, the pending claims recite additional technical elements, beyond any alleged abstract idea, that enable the claimed system to overcome technical limitations of existing vehicle usage tracking systems. In particular, the claims recite a specialized computer system configured to determine each user's actual vehicle usage during respective trips by leveraging data detected and collected by on-board vehicle sensors. The system processes this sensor data to identify the driver for each trip and to determine vehicle usage attributable to the identified driver. “, and “by identifying the specific user operating the vehicle for each trip, the claimed system determines the corresponding wear and tear attributable to that user. Any subsequent allocation of vehicle usage or associated costs among users is thus based on this technical determination. Accordingly, even if "allocating cost for trips" were considered an abstract idea, the claims integrate that concept into a practical application through a specific, technology-based implementation.” (Response at 12-13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, first identifying the specific user operating the vehicle for each trip, the claimed system determines the corresponding wear and tear attributable to that user. Any subsequent allocation of vehicle usage or associated costs among users is thus based on this technical determination represent fundamental economic practice. Second “specialized computer system configured to determine each user's actual vehicle usage during respective trips by leveraging data detected and collected by on-board vehicle sensors. The system processes this sensor data to identify the driver for each trip and to determine vehicle usage attributable to the identified driver.” The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1))
Applicant argues the claims are directed to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Specifically “the claims recite a non-conventional, specialized computer system configured to determine each user's actual vehicle usage during respective trips by leveraging data detected and collected by on-board vehicle sensors. The system processes this sensor data to identify the driver for each trip and to determine vehicle usage attributable to the identified driver. By identifying the specific user operating the vehicle for each trip, the claimed system determines the corresponding wear and tear attributable to that user. In doing so, the system not only identifies the driver each time a trip is taken, but also continuously tracks vehicle usage by each user whenever that user operates the vehicle. Accordingly, the present claims recite a specific combination of limitations that operate in a non-conventional and non-generic manner to automatically track vehicle usage on a per-trip, per-user basis, thereby determining individualized vehicle usage among multiple users (e.g., drivers and passengers) of the vehicle.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, first generating the operation cost for the trip represent fundamental economic practice. Second determining who is the driver based on the data provided by sensors represents mere instructions to apply the exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
For at least the reasons stated above applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C § 101 are not persuasive.
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 1-4, 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 8 is addressed.
Claim 8 recites “allocating cost for trips” which is a grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic practices” in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)). Claim 8 recites:
A computer-implemented method for tracking usage of a vehicle by each users of the vehicle, the method implemented using a computing device associated with the vehicle and including at least one processor in communication with a memory and one or more sensors associated with the vehicle, the method comprising, via one or more processors, sensors, servers, or transceivers:
receiving, from the one or more sensors, first data related to a first user-specific key associated with a first vehicle user of the vehicle and second data related to a second user-specific key associated with a second vehicle user of the vehicle, the first and second user- specific keys configured to be detected, by the one or more sensors, when located proximate to or within the vehicle to indicate that the first and second vehicle users are preparing to initiate or have initiated an anticipated trip using the vehicle, the first and second user-specific keys capable of accessing the vehicle, the first and second user-specific keys previously registered with the computing device to the first and second vehicle users, respectively, to track usage of the vehicle when each of the first and second vehicle users drives the vehicle;
receiving, from the one or more sensors, location data indicating a location within the vehicle of (i) each of the first and second vehicle users and (ii) each of the first and second user-specific keys;
determining whether the first user-specific key has been used to start the vehicle based upon an indication included in the received location data;
in response to determining that the first user-specific key has been used to start the vehicle, identifying the first vehicle user as a driver of the anticipated trip;
retrieving, from the memory, a first usage report associated with the first vehicle user and a second usage report associated with the second vehicle user, each usage report indicating a prior usage of the vehicle by the first and the second vehicle users;
generating a first output including an anticipated operational cost for the anticipated trip based upon the first usage report, the second usage report, and the first vehicle user being the driver of the anticipated trip;
wherein the first output is generated to allocate the anticipated operational cost between the first vehicle user and the second vehicle user;
in response to initiation of the anticipated trip, receive, from the one or more sensors, telematics data associated with the anticipated trip, the one or more sensors configured to collect the telematics data by detecting conditions of the vehicle while being driven by each of the first and second vehicle users; and
determine, using the telematics data, an actual usage of the vehicle during the anticipated trip by the first vehicle user, the actual usage determined to generate a second output including an actual operational cost based on the determined actual usage, the actual operational cost allocated between the first vehicle user and the second vehicle user.
The additional elements of claim 8 such as “A computer-implemented method for tracking usage of a vehicle by each users of the vehicle, the method implemented using a computing device associated with the vehicle and including at least one processor in communication with a memory and one or more sensors associated with the vehicle, the method comprising, via one or more processors, sensors, servers, or transceivers:”, “…one or more sensors… vehicle… configured to be detected, by the one or more sensors, when located proximate to or within the vehicle … the vehicle, the first and second user-specific keys capable of accessing the vehicle computing device…”, “receiving, from the one or more sensors, location data indicating a location within the vehicle of (i) each of the first and second vehicle users and (ii) each of the first and second user-specific keys;”, “determining whether the first user-specific key has been used to start the vehicle based upon an indication included in the received location data”, and “in response to initiation of the anticipated trip, receive, from the one or more sensors, telematics data associated with the anticipated trip, the one or more sensors configured to collect the telematics data by detecting conditions of the vehicle while being driven by each of the first and second vehicle users;”, “determine, using the telematics data, an actual usage of the vehicle during the anticipated trip by the first vehicle user” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e., automate) the acts of allocating cost for trips.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of “allocating cost for trips”.
Hence, claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Claims, 2, 9 and 16 recites the additional elements of “wherein each of the first user-specific key and the second user-specific key is one of a key fob or an electronic key included in a user computing device.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 recites “wherein each of the first and second usage reports is generated using information previously collected by the … during one or more previous trips performed by the first … user and/or the second … user.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…one or more sensors…”, “…vehicle…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claims 4 and 18 recites “retrieve, …, insurance policy information associated with the …, the second … user, and the first … user, wherein the insurance policy information includes at least one pre-defined … policy identifying how … costs are to be allocated between the first … user and one or more other users of the …, the one or more other users including the second … user.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…from the memory…”, “…vehicle…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 6, 13, and 19 recites “identify the first … user as the driver of the anticipated trip by determining that the second …user is located on or near a passenger seat ….” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…vehicle…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 7, 14, and 20 recites “wherein the anticipated operational cost includes at least one of cost to operate the … or cost to insure the … for the anticipated trip, and wherein the at least one … is further configured to”, “receive, … … coordinates of a current location of the …”, “in response to receiving an anticipated destination and the … coordinates, determine a distance of the anticipated trip based upon the anticipated destination and the … coordinates.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…from the one or more sensors, global position system (GPS)…”, “…vehicle…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 11 recites “retrieving, …, insurance policy information associated with the …, the second … user, and the first … user, wherein the insurance policy information includes at least one pre-defined … policy identifying how … costs are to be allocated between the first … user and one or more other users of the …, the one or more other users including the second … user.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…from the memory…”, “…vehicle…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 12 recites “generating the anticipated operational cost based upon the at least one pre-defined … policy.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…vehicle …” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 21 recites “determine whether the first user-specific key is located on or near a driver seat of the … based upon the received location data”, “in response to determining that the first user-specific key is located on or near the driver seat, identify the first … user as the driver of the anticipated trip.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…vehicle…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself, and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Relied Upon
Wright (US 9311271 B2) Teaches method for logging vehicle behavior.
Ramanujam (US 2015/0338852 A1) Teaches sharing autonomous vehicles.
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 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 GREGORY MARK JAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-5155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/GREGORY M JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692