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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant filed an amendment on 11/18/25.
Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-11, 18 are amended. No claims are new or canceled. Thus claims 1-20 are pending. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot in view of new grounds of rejection. This action is a Final Rejection.
35 USC § 101
Not applicable. The instant application requires a server, GPS, “third party server”, sensor, communication network, to monitor vehicle based risk and provide feedback of the risk in real time.
The invention is both a practical application of technology to provide users with real time risk mitigation. It would not appear that such a concept could be done manually or on paper.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3-11,13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent to Bogovich 8606512 in view of US Patent to Bauer 8595034, US Patent Publication 20100131307 to Collophy
As per claims 1, 11 Bogovich discloses;
receiving, via a communication network at a first time from an electronic device, an initial location of the vehicle, the initial location
Bogovich(col. 11 intersections and other risky areas approached will be scored, lines 25-35, the risk value may be derived from vehicle info transmitted by the data source)
generated by a global positioning system (GPS) sensor incorporated within the electronic device; retrieving, from a third-party server, data indicating a set of weather conditions associated with the initial location;
Bogovich(Col. 4 lines 5-12) examining the data to identify the location-based risk and a particular type of the location-based risk; (col. 12 location tracking, col. 4 lines 55-65, based on weather among other things) examining, from the data indicating the set of weather conditions, that the location-based risk exists in association with the initial location,
Bogovich (col. 5 lines 25-35 weather conditions are considered…. “set” could be various conditions, temp. rain etc.) calculating, based upon the data indicating the set of weather conditions, a percentage chance of incident to the vehicle in association with initial location; automatically communicating, via the communication network, Bogogvich (col 5 generally speaks about weather as a factor for calculating risk of a vehicle) an indication of the location-based risk to the electronic device for assessment by the operator; Bogovich(col. 3 lines 1-15, presenting the driver with lower risk options)subsequent to communicating the indication, receiving, via the communication network at a second time from the GPS sensor of the electronic device, an updated location of the vehicle; Bogovich(col. 4 lines 15-20 and col. 6 liens 55-60) calculating (i) an updated percentage chance of incident to the vehicle based upon the updated location, and causing a user interface of the electronic device to display a notification indicating I that the location-based risk is mitigated and (ii) a reward associated with the location based risk being mitigated. Bogovich(col. 9 lines 1-10, risk and reward, col. 10 lines 10-15, display a red color to show a high risk route and a green color to show a low risk route , further the unit may alert the driver of a high risk segement and offer the driver an incentive to avoid the segment….. )
Bogovich does not explicitly disclose what Bauer teaches;
wherein a threshold time period is associated with a particular type of the location-based risk;
(col. 16 distance or time based threshold as it relates to insurance risk)
that the elapsed time period is less than the threshold time period associated with the particular type of the location-based risk;
Baur (col. 16 distance or time based threshold as it relates to insurance risk)
It would there have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the insurance disclosure of Bogovich with the location teachings of Bauer for the motivation of determining motor vehicle insurance cost accuracy. (col. 1 lines 47-60)
Here Bogovich discloses rewarding the policy holder for taking a safter route but not necessarily based on the first and second time elapsed.
Collophy teaches;
and (ii) an elapsed time period between the first time and the second time; determining (i) that the updated percentage chance of incident is less than the percentage chance of incident, and Collophy (0034, time dependent insurance benefits can reward and incentivize the driver to travel during safer times)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the insurance teachings of Bogovich with the time based insurance of Collophy for the motivation of creating insurance that is not “rigidly priced” over long time frames. (0006)
Claim 11 is similar to claim 1.
As per claims 3, 13, Bogovich discloses;
The method of claim 1, wherein the data associated with the initial location further indicates a set of risks posed to the vehicle in association with the initial location. Bogovich(col. 6 lines 35-40, col. 12 lines 30-40 initial route by start location)
As per claims 4, 14, Bogovich discloses;
The method of claim 1, wherein calculating the percentage chance of incident comprises: calculating the percentage chance of incident from additional information associated with the initial location. (co. 10 lines 40-55 accident percentile)
As per claims 5, 15 Bogovich discloses;
The method of claim 1, wherein calculating the updated percentage chance of incident comprises: calculating the updated percentage chance of incident from
information associated with the updated location. (col. 4 lines 35-40 updated database)
As per claims 6, 16 Bogovich discloses;
the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the initial location of the vehicle comprises: requesting the electronic device for the initial location; and receiving the initial location from the GPS sensor of the electronic device. Bogovich(col.7 lines 30-40 GPS sensor track location)
As per claims 7, 17, The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the updated location of the vehicle comprises: requesting the electronic device for the updated location; and receiving the updated location from the GPS sensor of the electronic device.
Bogovich (col. 7, lines 30-40 GPS sensor can track locations col. 10 lines 15-25)
As per claims 8, 18 Bogovich discloses; The method of claim 1, determining the reward wherein the reward is redeemable by the vehicle operator. Bogovich (col. 10, lines 1-15 safe drivers are rewarded including those who take the safer lower risk route, in col. 10, the time of day and other factors are considered)
As per claims 9 and 19 Bogovich discloses; The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the updated percentage chance of incident is not less than the percentage chance of incident. Bogovich(Col. 10 list of expensive accidents by percent, lines 45-end)
As per claims 10, 20, Bogovich discloses; The method of claim 9, further comprising: subsequent to determining that the updated percentage chance of incident is not less than the percentage chance of incident, receiving, via the communication network at a third time from the electronic device, a subsequent updated location of the vehicle. Bogovich (col. 10 line of expensive actions by percent lines 45-end)
Claim(s) 2,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent to Bogovich 8606512 in view of US Patent to Bauer 8595034 and US Patent Publication 20100131307 to Collophy further in view of US Patent to Schumann 8805707
As per claims 2, 12, Bogovich, Bauer and Collopy do not explicitly disclose what Schumann teaches; The method of claim 1, wherein the data associated with the initial location comprises at least historical crime data. Schumann(Historical crime col.7 lines 1-10) The motivation for the combination is because it would be desirable to reduce losses from crime (col. 1 lines 30-4)
Response to Arguments
Applicant filed an amendment on 11/18/25.
Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-11, 18 are amended. No claims are new or canceled. Thus claims 1-20 are pending. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot in view of new grounds of rejection. This action is a Final Rejection.
The OA indicates potentially allowable subject matter directed to an interface where risk and reward can be presented to the user.
Here, the potential offering was directed to avoiding weather anomaly’s. Applicant did not take advantage of the exact offering though it might be available in the future.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
A. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Bogovich in view of Bauer and Collopy. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection because the proposed combination of Bogovich, Bauer, and Collophy fails to teach or suggest each and every element of the amended claims.
Amended claim 1 recites a compute- implemented method of notifying an operator of a vehicle of a location-based risk comprising, inter alia, "causing a user interface of the electronic device to display a notification indicating (i) that the location-based risk is mitigated, and (ii) a reward associated with the location-based risk being mitigated."
Amended claim 11 recites similar elements. Applicant respectfully submits that Bogovich does not teach or suggest at least these claim elements.
Bogovich discusses a method for mitigating driving risks by assigning risk values to road segments, selecting less risky travel routes, as well as promoting and rewarding risk mitigation. See Abstract. In particular, Bogovich discloses an intersection that is a frequent site of vehicle accident-related deaths and that has a very high risk value (see column 11, lines 11-15), as well as a route that routes a driver near an intersection (see column 12, lines 55-58). However, Applicant respectfully submits that the functionality of Bogovich is not comparable to that of amended claims 1 and 11.
In particular, Bogovich discloses identifying a particular driver as a lower-risk driver (e.g., a driver that travels on statistically lower-risk routes during lower-risk times) and providing the driver/vehicle with a discount and/or credit on an existing insurance policy or towards a future insurance policy (see column 10, lines 4-9). In contrast, amended claims 1 and 11 recite a user interface of an electronic device displaying a notification indicating both
(i) that a location-based risk is mitigated, and (ii) a reward associated with the location-based
risk being mitigated. Indeed, Bogovich is silent on the display of these notification elements.
Accordingly, Bogovich fails to teach or suggest at least "causing a user interface of the electronic device to display a notification indicating (i) that the location-based risk is mitigated, and (ii) a reward associated with the location-based risk being mitigated," as recited in amended claims 1 and 11. Neither Bauer nor Collophy, either alone or in
combination with Bogovich, corrects this deficiency.
Here Col. 10 of Bogovich indicates a real time display where a route may be designated as red or green and in some cases the driver may be alerted of a high risk road segment and offered an incentive for avoiding the segment. Thus it appears that Bogovich does anticipate this element.
Bauer describes a "system for monitoring, recording, storing and communicating
operational characteristics and operator actions relating to a unit of risk in order to obtain data which reflects the level of safety or risk applicable to the operation of that unit of risk, for the purpose of obtaining a more accurate or customized determination of the cost of insuring that
unit of risk" (see column 4, line 66- column 5, line 3); and Collophy describes "[s]ystem(s) and methods(s) to monetize knowledge of operation characteristics of an insured entity" (see Abstract). However, each of Bauer and Collophy is silent on the display, in a user interface, of a notification that indicates (i) that a location-based risk is mitigated, and (ii) a reward
associated with the location-based risk being mitigated.
Therefore, each of Bauer and Collophy also fails to teach or suggest at least "causing
a user interface of the electronic device to display a notification indicating (i) that the location-based risk is mitigated, and (ii) a reward associated with the location-based risk
being mitigated," as recited in amended claims 1 and 11. Therefore, the OA's proposed combination of Bogovich, Bauer, and Collophy fails to teach or suggest each and every element of these claims.
Here as further argued above Bogovich teaches the argued and amended limitation and thus applicant argument is in part moot in view of amendment and non-persuasive in view of the generalized restructuring of the grounds of rejection.
3-10 and 13-20 are argued by virtue of dependency on claims 1, 11.
Claims 2, 12 are argued by virtue of dependency on their respective independent claims.
Potentially Allowable Subject Mater
Claims directed to an interface where risk and reward can be presented to the user based on actions taken in real time such as avoiding a weather anomaly for example. Interface, fig. 3a, 3b, as it relates to weather 0023, and adding relevant technology.
Here applicant has not fully incorporated the offered element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A Mobile System for Detecting and Notifying Vehicle Rollover Events, IEEE 2007
PriPAYD: Privacy-Friendly Pay-As-You-Drive Insurance, IEEE 2011
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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 BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693