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 response filed on December 16, 2025
Claims 2-10 were added.
Claim 1 was amended.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because claim 1 is directed to significantly more than the abstract idea and provides improved localization determinations with respect to passengers within a vehicle. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention recited a process for identifying the location of one or more passengers within a vehicle based on localization data. Locating the one or more passengers within the vehicle is an example of an evaluation of the localization data, and evaluations are a type of mental process, or concept performed in the human mind. Mental processes are one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas that are not considered patent eligible. Claim 1 lacks any additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, when considered separately or in combination with the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 is directed towards an abstract idea and is not patent eligible. Thus, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper due to the recent decision in Ex Parte Desjardins, where the US Patent and Trademark Office indicated that Sections 102, 103, and 112 are the traditional and appropriate tools to limit patent protection to its proper scope. Examiner disagrees. Applicant has mischaracterized the decision in Ex Parte Desjardins. The decision in Ex Parte Desjardins does not remove 101 analysis from the patent examination process. Determining the proper scope of patent protection for a patent application is an issue that is separate and distinct from the issue of whether the subject matter in the patent application is eligible for patent protection. While Sections 102, 103, and 112 focus on the former, Section 101 addresses the latter. Based on the standards for patent eligibility set forth in Section 101, Applicant’s claimed invention is not patent eligible in its present form. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that the Brandmaier and Corder references are disqualified as prior art due to the common ownership exception of 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C). Examiner agrees that the references of Brandmaier and Corder are not considered prior art due to the common ownership exception of 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C). However, Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 and the addition of claims 2-10 necessitated the use of other prior art references that are not disqualified to reject claims 1-10 under 35 USC 103. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system method 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
a method comprising: automatically initiating retrieval [by a computing device] of telematics data from a vehicle associated with an insurance user;
processing the telematics data to identify a vehicle incident indicative of a vehicle collision event;
in response to identifying the vehicle incident, generating an alert for an insurance agent to contact the insurance user; and
retrieving localization data [from one or more localization devices within the vehicle]; and
identifying a location of one or more passengers within the vehicle based on the localization data.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as a mental process because the limitations recite concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The computing device and one or more localization devices within the vehicle recited in Claim 1 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a computing device and one or more localization devices within the vehicle. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware 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. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claim 2 recited one or more mobile devices associated with the one or more passengers within the vehicle. The additional element of the one or more mobile devices associated with the one or more passengers within the vehicle is just the application of generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations, which does not result in the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The remaining dependent claims 3-10 only serve to further describe the abstract idea present in independent claim 1 and thus correspond to mental processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 3-10 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 are directed towards an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1-10 are not patent eligible.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collopy (US 2010/0131303) in view of Kim (KR100776658) in view of Breed (US 2008/0086240).
Regarding claim(s) 1:
Collopy teaches:
A method comprising: automatically initiating retrieval by a computing device of telematics data from a vehicle associated with an insurance user; (Callopy: pgh 8, “The subject innovation customizes insurance rates in real time to correspond to unique behavior/character traits of a user/driver by exploiting contextual data (e.g., from third party data banks, driving behavior, and the like), which are related to such user/driver…The contextual data and/or data banks can include data pertaining to the motor vehicle (e.g., maintenance history, current vehicle conditions, sensor monitoring operation of the motor vehicle, and the like)…Moreover, the real-time contextual driving data can include both an intensity portion and a frequency portion, which represent severity and regularity of driving episodes (e.g., slamming the brakes, gradual/sudden deceleration, velocity variances, and number of such acts in a predetermined period).”
Collopy does not teach, however, Kim teaches:
processing the telematics data to identify a vehicle incident indicative of a vehicle collision event; (Kim: pgh 13 pg 4, “In the conventional automatic accident notification system configured as described above, when the airbag operation control unit operates, it recognizes it as an accident or a collision…”)
in response to identifying the vehicle incident, generating an alert for an insurance agent to contact the insurance user; and (Kim: pgh 13 pg 4, “…it recognizes it as an accident or a collision, and obtains the information such as the state and position of the present vehicle recognized through the positional information generating unit and automatically notifies wirelessly to a specific place (for example, an insurance company, an emergency rescue center, etc.) by the wireless transmission unit.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Collopy to include the teachings of Kim because there is a need for the rapid notification of a car accident (Kim: pgh 10). Collopy/Kim does not teach the remaining limitations. However, Breed teaches:
retrieving localization data from one or more localization devices within the vehicle and identifying a location of one or more passengers within the vehicle based on the localization data. (Breed: pgh 891, “An occupant monitoring system (e.g. ultrasonic, optical, electric field, etc.) may perform differently depending on whether the seat is made from cloth or leather or a weight sensor may depend on the properties of a particular seat…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Collopy/Kim to include the teachings of Breed because there is a need to increase vehicle connectivity to computer networks for optimized operation of the vehicle (Breed: pgh 18).
Regarding claim(s) 2:
The combination of Collopy/Kim/Breed, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Breed further teaches:
wherein the one or more localization devices communicate with one or more mobile devices associated with the one or more passengers within the vehicle to collect localization data. (Breed: pgh 989, “…software in both the vehicle-residence computer and one or more computers at a fixed or mobile location which communicates with the vehicle-resident computer can be synchronized so that both or all contain the same data…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Collopy/Kim to include the teachings of Breed because there is a need to increase vehicle connectivity to computer networks for optimized operation of the vehicle (Breed: pgh 18).
Regarding claim(s) 3:
The combination of Collopy/Kim/Breed, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Breed further teaches:
wherein identifying a location of the one or more passengers within the vehicle based on the localization data comprises determining: a transmission time of one or more received signals from the one or more mobile devices with the one or more localization devices; and (Breed: pgh 318, “For example, for the case of the SAW technology, each sensor can be provided with a different delay or a different code.”)
correlating the transmission time to a distance of the one or more mobile devices from the one or more localization devices. (Breed: pgh 1174, “An electronic circuit in control module 577 contains a microprocessor which determines the distance from the head of the occupant based on the time between the transmission and reception of an ultrasonic pulse.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Collopy/Kim to include the teachings of Breed because there is a need to increase vehicle connectivity to computer networks for optimized operation of the vehicle (Breed: pgh 18).
Regarding claim(s) 4:
The combination of Collopy/Kim/Breed, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Breed further teaches:
wherein retrieving the localization data from one or more localization devices within the vehicle comprises communicating directly with the one or more localization devices. (Breed: pgh 989, “Additional aspects of the network being used as a computer involving a vehicle-resident computer and devices, or the ‘network is the computer’ feature, is that software in both the vehicle-residence computer and one or more computers at a fixed or mobile location which communicates with the vehicle-resident computer can be synchronized…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Collopy/Kim to include the teachings of Breed because there is a need to increase vehicle connectivity to computer networks for optimized operation of the vehicle (Breed: pgh 18).
Regarding claim(s) 5:
The combination of Collopy/Kim/Breed, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Breed further teaches:
wherein retrieving the localization data from one or more localization devices within the vehicle comprises communicating directly with the one or more mobile devices. (Breed: pgh 989, “Networking the vehicle-resident computer and one or more fixed or mobile computers also allows computations to be performed at one of these computers, or the network, and shared with the other computer(s). Mobile computers may include cellphones and PDAs as well as any other mobile device or terminal which can be networked to another computer.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Collopy/Kim to include the teachings of Breed because there is a need to increase vehicle connectivity to computer networks for optimized operation of the vehicle (Breed: pgh 18).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collopy/Kim/Breed in view of Kokal (US 9,547,797).
Regarding claim(s) 6:
The combination of Collopy/Kim/Breed, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kokal further teaches:
wherein the one or more localization devices comprises at least three localization devices. (Kokal: col 7, lines 35-40, “Multiple sensors may be employed, and each sensor may be responsible for monitoring a particular region of the vehicle interior.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Collopy/Kim/Breed to include the teachings of Kokal because there is a need for tracking the number and position of occupants within a vehicle (Kokal: col 1, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim(s) 7:
The combination of Collopy/Kim/Breed/Kokal, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 6. Kokal further teaches:
wherein at least two localization devices are positioned at opposite sides of a front windshield of a vehicle. (Kokal: col 5, lines 50-66, “The combination of sensor, control unit and communications unit may be positioned on the front dashboard or windshield of the vehicle, or anywhere else within the vehicle…In an embodiment with multiple sensors, it may be desirable to have the sensors positioned at different locations within the vehicle. For example, one sensor may be included with the primary sensing unit mounted on the front windshield…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Collopy/Kim/Breed to include the teachings of Kokal because there is a need for tracking the number and position of occupants within a vehicle (Kokal: col 1, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim(s) 8:
The combination of Collopy/Kim/Breed/Kokal, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Kokal further teaches:
wherein at least one localization device is positioned along a midline of a rear windshield. (Kokal: col 6, lines 1-5: “…while a second sensor is positioned toward a rear portion of the vehicle…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Collopy/Kim/Breed to include the teachings of Kokal because there is a need for tracking the number and position of occupants within a vehicle (Kokal: col 1, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim(s) 9:
The combination of Collopy/Kim/Breed/Kokal, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 6. Kokal further teaches:
wherein at least one localization device is positioned along a midline of a rear windshield. (Kokal: col 6, lines 1-5: “…while a second sensor is positioned toward a rear portion of the vehicle…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Collopy/Kim/Breed to include the teachings of Kokal because there is a need for tracking the number and position of occupants within a vehicle (Kokal: col 1, lines 35-40).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collopy/Kim/Breed in view of Jackson (US 2014/0025404)
Regarding claim(s) 10:
The combination of Collopy/Kim/Breed, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Jackson further teaches:
in response to identifying the vehicle incident, automatically generating an electronic insurance claim form and pre-populating the insurance claim form with information of the insurance user. (Jackson: pgh 25, “In cases prompted by membership and agreements with the sponsors/owners of an advanced automatic collision notification system, notification containing accident details may pre-populate an initial segment of the consumer claim solution software when facilitated through the data network interface.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Collopy/Kim/Breed to include the teachings of Jackson because it is beneficial to make pre-populated insurance claims available to insurance policyholders (Jackson: pgh 2).
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Jhoney (US 11,188,984) discloses the automation and validation of insurance claims.
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 of 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 extension fee 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 JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00 pm - 8:00 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, Michael W Anderson can be reached on 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
December 30, 2025
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights