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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to application 18/662,397 entitled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INSURANCE RATING BASED ON TELEMATICS" filed on November 6, 2025, with claims 1 to 20 pending.
Prosecution Re-Opening
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on May 15, 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/CHRISTINE M Tran/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 18, and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 6, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 7, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 13, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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 directed to a method/process, machine/apparatus, (article of) manufacture, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“A system for intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination, the system comprising:
…receive telematics data comprising one or more telematics factors associated with one or more vehicles;
based on the telematics data and independent of user-based factors, determine a price-per- metric rate of insurance for a user of a user vehicle of the one or more vehicles;
display, …(i) the price-per-metric rate of insurance for the user of the user vehicle and (ii) a …the price-per-metric rate of insurance; and
…to accept the price-per-metric rate of insurance…assign the price-per-metric rate of insurance to the user...”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between vehicles and insurance providers. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “adjustable price-per-metric rate determination,...determine a price-per- metric rate of insurance for a user ...display, …the price-per-metric rate of insurance for the user…to accept the price-per-metric rate of insurance…assign the price-per-metric rate of insurance to the user” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites 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:
[one or more processors; one or more memory components communicatively coupled to the one or more processors; and machine readable instructions stored in the one or more memory components that cause the system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors] [on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a mobile device of the user] [on the GUI of the mobile device by the user]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
“prompt to accept ...upon acceptance of the prompt”:
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
[for the user vehicle]: merely applying automotive technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, [0031] “computing device 324 may be a personal computer, a laptop device, a smart mobile device (e.g., the mobile device 110 of FIG. 1) such as a smart phone or smart pad, or the like.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does 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.
The prompt to accept ...upon acceptance of the prompt is an additional element, that is merely insignificant extra solution activity, specifically mere data gathering. Per MPEP 2106.05(g), similar to Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 2:
“processors”, “GUI of the mobile device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 3:
“processors”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“vehicle”: merely applying automotive technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
Claim 4:
“processors”, “GUI of the mobile device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 5:
“processors”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 6:
“processors”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 7:
“processors”, “GUI of the mobile device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“vehicle”: merely applying automotive technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
“prompt”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
Claim 8:
“processors”, “GUI of the mobile device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“prompt”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
Claim 9: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 10:
“vehicle”: merely applying automotive technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
Claim 11: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 12: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 13:
“vehicle”: merely applying automotive technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
Claim 14: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 15: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 16: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 17:
“vehicles”: merely applying automotive technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, [0031] “computing device 324 may be a personal computer, a laptop device, a smart mobile device (e.g., the mobile device 110 of FIG. 1) such as a smart phone or smart pad, or the like.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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, the claim 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)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims 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.
The prompt is an additional element, that is merely insignificant extra solution activity, specifically mere data gathering. Per MPEP 2106.05(g), similar to Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 18 recites:
“A system for intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination, the system comprising:
…receive telematics data comprising one or more telematics factors….;
based on the telematics data and independent of user-based factors, determine a price-per- metric rate of insurance for a user …and
assign the price-per-metric rate of insurance to the user for the user...”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between vehicles and insurance providers. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “adjustable price-per-metric rate determination” and “assign the price-per-metric rate of insurance” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites 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:
[one or more processors; one or more memory components communicatively coupled to the one or more processors; and machine readable instructions stored in the one or more memory components that cause the system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[associated with one or more vehicles] [of a user vehicle of the one or more vehicles][vehicle]: merely applying automotive technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, [0031] “computing device 324 may be a personal computer, a laptop device, a smart mobile device (e.g., the mobile device 110 of FIG. 1) such as a smart phone or smart pad, or the like.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 18 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)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does 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, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 19:
“executed by the one or more processors”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“vehicle”: merely applying automotive technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, [0031] “computing device 324 may be a personal computer, a laptop device, a smart mobile device (e.g., the mobile device 110 of FIG. 1) such as a smart phone or smart pad, or the like.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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, the claim 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)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims 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, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 20 recites:
“A method for intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination, the method comprising:
receiving telematics data comprising one or more telematics factors associated with…;
based on the telematics data and independent of user-based factors, determining a price- per-metric rate of insurance for a user of a user …;
displaying, …of the user, (i) the price-per-metric rate of insurance for the user of the user vehicle and (ii) a …the price-per-metric rate of insurance; and
upon acceptance of the … the price-per-metric rate of insurance on the GUI of the mobile device by the user, assigning the price-per-metric rate of insurance to the user for the user vehicle.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between vehicles and insurance providers. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “adjustable price-per-metric rate determination” and “assign the price-per-metric rate of insurance” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites 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:
[on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a mobile device]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
“prompt to accept ... the prompt”:
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
[one or more vehicles][ of the one or more vehicles]: merely applying automotive technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, [0031] “computing device 324 may be a personal computer, a laptop device, a smart mobile device (e.g., the mobile device 110 of FIG. 1) such as a smart phone or smart pad, or the like.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 20 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)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does 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.
The prompt to accept ...... the prompt is an additional element, that is merely insignificant extra solution activity, specifically mere data gathering. Per MPEP 2106.05(g), similar to Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
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, 3, 5-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasserman ("PERSONALIZED INSURANCE SYSTEMS", U.S. Patent Number: US 10664917 B1), in view of Nagel (“APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATED TRAFFIC AND DRIVING PATTERN RECOGNITION AND LOCATION-DEPENDENT MEASUREMENT OF ABSOLUTE AND/OR RELATIVE RISK PROBABILITIES FOR CAR ACCIDENTS”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20190283745 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Wasserman teaches,
A system for intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination, the system comprising: one or more processors; one or more memory components communicatively coupled to the one or more processors; and machine readable instructions stored in the one or more memory components that cause the system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors:
(Wasserman [Abstract] insurance systems, including vehicle-based...to determine and implement … vehicle insurance policies. ... to determine usage-based insurance parameters for vehicle driving
Wasserman [Col 16, Lines 1-2] insurance terms provided … under the policy may change dynamically
Wasserman [Claim 1] the insurance system server comprising one or more second processors, and at least one second non-transient memory storing computer-readable instructions)
receive telematics data comprising one or more telematics factors associated with one or more vehicles;
(Wasserman [Col 8, Lines 25-32] sensor data may be transmitted ... to other nearby vehicles. Additionally, the sensor data may be transmitted via telematics devices ...to ... computing devices, such as personal mobile device 230, insurance system server)
based on the telematics data and independent of user-based factors, determine a price-per- metric rate of insurance for a user of a user vehicle of the one or more vehicles;
(Wasserman [Col 10, Lines 20-27] vehicle sensors, vehicle on-board diagnostic systems (OBDs) and other vehicle-based systems and/or vehicle communication systems, may collect and/or transmit data pertaining to autonomous driving of the vehicles. In autonomous driving, the vehicle fulfills all or part of the driving without being piloted by a human. An autonomous car can be also referred to as a driverless car, self-driving car, or robot car.
Wasserman [Col 9, Lines 62-65] Telematics devices 213 and 223 also may be configured to detect or determine additional types of data relating to real-time driving and the condition of the vehicles
Wasserman [Col 17, Lines 5-32] calculations may be based....sensor data may be transmitted ... to other nearby vehicles. Additionally, the sensor data may be transmitted via telematics devices ...to ... computing devices, such as personal mobile device 230, insurance system server 250
Examiner notes the Specification reads [0007] “independent of user-based factors such as age, marital status, driving score, and the like.” Examiner notes a “driverless” or “robot” car cannot have a marital status.)
display, on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a mobile device of the user, (i) the price-per-metric rate of insurance for the user of the user vehicle
(Wasserman [Claim 23, Lines 44-46] receive and display multiple different insurance offers from different insurance providers, and may allow the user to select an offer
Wasserman [Claim 2] display, on the personal mobile device or a vehicle-based display system, the calculated at least one alternate driving trip insurance cost
Wasserman [Col 16, Lines 50-56] usage-based parameters for driving... may be defined in different time increments (e.g., driving or parking per-minute, per-hour, per-day, per-week, etc.), different mileage increments (e.g., driving per-10-miles, per-100-miles, etc.), or may be based on driving trips (e.g., a per-trip driving insurance cost).)
and (ii) a prompt to accept the price-per-metric rate of insurance; and upon acceptance of the prompt to accept the price-per-metric rate of insurance on the GUI of the mobile device by the user,
(Wasserman [Col 24, Lines 23-35] the driver may have an additional response option corresponding to a request for alternative insurance offers in step 505, rather than only having options to accept or decline the insurance offer. ... allowing to driver to review and select from among several alternative insurance suggestions for the driving trip(s) before accepting any … insurance offer.
Wasserman [Col 17, Lines 61-65] one driver may request per-mile driving insurance prices for a … insurance policy, while another driver may request per-hour or per-day driving insurance prices
Wasserman [Claim 13] display, on the personal mobile device)
assign the price-per-metric rate of insurance to the user for the user vehicle.
(Wasserman [Col 1, Lines 56-61] After a … vehicle insurance policy has been accepted and activated, data from the driver's mobile devices and associated vehicles may be monitored to detect and process the driver's vehicle usage data and driving data in accordance with the … insurance policy
Wasserman [Col 17, Lines 61-65] one driver may request per-mile driving insurance prices for a … insurance policy, while another driver may request per-hour or per-day driving insurance prices)
Nagel more explicitly teaches,
based on the telematics data and independent of user-based factors
(Nagel [0016] the present invention allows to provide motor risk-transfer that dynamically charges the risk-exposed person for “what he uses” (UBI insurance). Based in the implementation of dynamic telematics capturing… Further differences and advantages are (i) the present invention does not need to know personal data concerning the vehicle driver, as e.g. age, sex, historical accident statistics etc.
Nagel [0012] The system should be enabled to measure and operate solely based on non-insurance related measuring parameters, i.e. the measuring should be provided without specific knowledge of the car driver, in particular relying on geospatial contexting for telematics-based, dynamic risk measurements.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Wasserman to incorporate driver-agnostic telematics data capture teachings of Nagel for “measure and operate solely based on non-insurance related measuring parameters, ….without specific knowledge of the car driver, …for telematics-based, dynamic risk measurements.” (Nagel [0012]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. driver-agnostic telematics data capture) to a known concept (i.e. intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “for telematics-based, dynamic risk measurements” Nagel [0012])
Regarding Claim 3,
Wasserman and Nagel teach the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Wasserman teaches,
determine whether a change outside a threshold has occurred with respect to the one or more telematics factors of the telematics data; update the price-per-metric rate of insurance when the change outside the threshold has occurred; and assign the updated price-per-metric rate of insurance to the user for the user vehicle.
(Wasserman [Col 18, Lines 11-30] the insurance prices determined ... may be adjusted over time based on changes in the driver data and/or vehicle data....may be reduced based a period of accident-free or safe driving by the driver. ...may be increased based on accidents or other insurance claims, moving violations, instances of high-risk driving.... additional driving data may be received indicating that the driver drives more cautiously...In this case, a … insurance system may revise the driver's … insurance prices
Wasserman [Col 17, Lines 61-65] per-mile driving insurance prices for a … insurance policy, ... per-hour or per-day driving insurance prices)
Regarding Claim 5,
Wasserman and Nagel teach the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Claim 3 as described earlier.
Wasserman teaches,
determine whether the change outside the threshold has occurred with respect to the one or more telematics factors of the telematics data in real-time; and update the price-per-metric rate of insurance in real-time when the change outside the threshold has occurred.
(Wasserman [Col 18, Lines 11-30] the insurance prices determined ... may be adjusted over time based on changes in the driver data and/or vehicle data...In this case, a … insurance system may revise the . … insurance prices
Wasserman [Col 9, Lines 64-65] determine additional types of data relating to real-time driving and the condition of the vehicles
Wasserman [Col 16, Lines 50-56] usage-based parameters for driving... may be defined in different time increments (e.g., driving or parking per-minute, per-hour, per-day, per-week, etc.), different mileage increments (e.g., driving per-10-miles, per-100-miles, etc.), or may be based on driving trips (e.g., a per-trip driving insurance cost).
Wasserman [Col 19, Lines 34-36] allowing the users to obtain insurance coverage in real-time or near real-time.)
Regarding Claim 6,
Wasserman and Nagel teach the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Claim 3 as described earlier.
Wasserman teaches,
determine whether the change outside the threshold has occurred with respect to the one or more telematics factors of the telematics data within a periodic interval; and update the price-per-metric rate of insurance at an end of the periodic interval when the change outside the threshold has occurred.
(Wasserman [Col 17, Lines 12-35] Such calculations also may be based on additional factors such as... time of day, time of week...for example indicating that the SUV is typically parked in the driver's garage while the sedan is typically parked on the street. The difference in parking insurance cost between vehicles
Wasserman [Col 20, Lines 40-41] may analyze location data (e.g., GPS signals), speed and acceleration data
Wasserman [Col 16, Lines 50-56] usage-based parameters for driving... may be defined in different time increments (e.g., driving or parking per-minute, per-hour, per-day, per-week, etc.), different mileage increments (e.g., driving per-10-miles, per-100-miles, etc.), or may be based on driving trips (e.g., a per-trip driving insurance cost).
Wasserman [Col 18, Lies 11-15] the insurance prices determined in step 304 may be adjusted over time based on changes in the driver data and/or vehicle data.... may be reduced based a period of accident-free or safe driving by the driver.)
Regarding Claim 7,
Wasserman and Nagel teach the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Wasserman teaches,
determine whether a change outside a threshold has occurred with respect to the one or more telematics factors of the telematics data;
(Wasserman [Col 17, Lines 12-35] Such calculations also may be based on additional factors such as... time of day, time of week...for example indicating that the SUV is typically parked in the driver's garage while the sedan is typically parked on the street. The difference in parking insurance cost between vehicles
Wasserman [Col 20, Lines 40-41] may analyze location data (e.g., GPS signals), speed and acceleration data)
update the price-per-metric rate of insurance as an updated price-per-metric rate of insurance when the change outside the threshold has occurred;
(Wasserman [Col 18, Lines 11-19] the insurance prices determined in step 304 may be adjusted over time based on changes in the driver data and/or vehicle data. For example, some of all of the driver's insurance costs listed in FIG. 4 may be reduced based a period of accident-free or safe driving by the driver....instances of high-risk driving (e.g., speeding, sudden braking or swerving events, etc.), and the like.
Wasserman [Col 18, Lines 24-28] after determining the usage-based insurance parameters and prices in FIG. 4, additional driving data may be received indicating that the driver drives more cautiously when driving the sedan 420, while driving faster and riskier)
display, on the GUI of the mobile device of the user, (i) the updated price-per-metric rate of insurance for the user of the user vehicle and (ii) a prompt to accept the updated price-per-metric rate of insurance; and
(Wasserman [Col 16, Lines 50-56] usage-based parameters for driving... may be defined in different time increments (e.g., driving or parking per-minute, per-hour, per-day, per-week, etc.), different mileage increments (e.g., driving per-10-miles, per-100-miles, etc.), or may be based on driving trips (e.g., a per-trip driving insurance cost).
Wasserman [Col 23, Lies 40-46] determine and present an insurance offer to the driver...a client-side application executing on the driver's mobile device ...may receive and display multiple different insurance offers from different insurance providers, and may allow the user to select an offer.
Wasserman [Col 22, Lines 29-31] a driver's mobile device 230, via a vehicle-based display system, or via a web-based or standalone application from an insurance system server)
upon acceptance of the prompt to accept the updated price-per-metric rate of insurance on the GUI of the mobile device by the user, assign the updated price-per-metric rate of insurance to the user for the user vehicle.
(Wasserman [Col 23, Lies 44-46] ..may receive and display multiple different insurance offers from different insurance providers, and may allow the user to select an offer. )
Regarding Claim 9,
Wasserman and Nagel teach the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Wasserman teaches,
wherein the price-per-metric rate of insurance comprises a price-per-mile, price-per-day, or price-per-trip rate of insurance.
(Wasserman [Col 16, Lines 45-56] each vehicle 410-430 has a mileage-based usage parameter for driving the vehicle (i.e., a per-mile driving rate up to a daily maximum insurance cost), along with a time-based usage parameter for parking the vehicle (i.e., a per-hour parking insurance cost).... may be defined in different time increments (e.g., driving or parking per-minute, per-hour, per-day, per-week, etc.), different mileage increments (e.g., driving per-10-miles, per-100-miles, etc.), or may be based on driving trips (e.g., a per-trip driving insurance cost).)
Regarding Claim 10,
Wasserman and Nagel teach the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Wasserman teaches,
wherein the one or more telematics factors associated with one or more vehicles comprise, for a period of time, (i) miles of the user vehicle driven on one or more types of roads;
(Wasserman [Col 16, Lines 45-56] each vehicle 410-430 has a mileage-based usage parameter for driving the vehicle (i.e., a per-mile driving rate up to a daily maximum insurance cost), along with a time-based usage parameter for parking the vehicle (i.e., a per-hour parking insurance cost).... may be defined in different time increments (e.g., driving or parking per-minute, per-hour, per-day, per-week, etc.), different mileage increments (e.g., driving per-10-miles, per-100-miles, etc.), or may be based on driving trips (e.g., a per-trip driving insurance cost).
Wasserman [Col 8, Lins 17-19] determine the route, speed, lane position, road-type (e.g. highway, entrance/exit ramp, residential area, etc.))
(ii) miles driven during one or more segmented times periods within a day; (iii) miles of the user vehicle driven in one or more types of population areas; (iv) hard braking information for the user vehicle; (v) speeding information for the user vehicle; or (vi) combinations thereof.
(Wasserman [Col 7, Lines 16-19] detect and store data corresponding to the vehicle's location (e.g., GPS coordinates), time, travel time, speed and direction, rates of acceleration or braking, gas mileage, and specific instances of sudden acceleration, braking, swerving, and distance traveled
Wasserman [Col 17, line 15] time of day
Wasserman [Col 7, Lines 18-20] rates of acceleration or braking, gas mileage, and specific instances of sudden acceleration, braking
Wasserman [Col 8, Lins 17-19] residential area)
Regarding Claim 11,
Wasserman and Nagel teach the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Claim 10 as described earlier.
Wasserman teaches,
wherein the one or more types of roads comprise a highway or a surface local road,
(Wasserman [Col 8, Lins 17-19] determine the route, speed, lane position, road-type (e.g. highway, entrance/exit ramp, residential area, etc.))
the one or more segmented time periods within the day including during the day or at night,
(Wasserman [Col 17, Lines 43-45] For instance, certain embodiments may include “Day Driving” and “Night Driving” usage-based parameters)
Wasserman does not teach the one or more types of population areas comprise a high population area at or over a population threshold or a low population area under the population threshold.
Nagel teaches,
the one or more types of population areas comprise a high population area at or over a population threshold or a low population area under the population threshold.
(Nagel [0014] generated data records are filtered by predefined trigger parameters triggering threshold values of the generated population density parameters
Nagel [0028] a raster of population data 401. The system 1 extracts population density parameters
Nagel [0047] Population density parameters can be further used by the system 1 to isolate area types (urban, second city, suburban, town and rural).)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Wasserman to incorporate the automated traffic and driving pattern recognition teachings of Nagel for “a measuring method for automated traffic and driving pattern recognition and location-dependent measurement and forecast.” (Nagel [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. automated traffic and driving pattern recognition) to a known concept (i.e. intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “predictions of the accident risk for arbitrary areas can be provided. The measuring apparatus (1) is calibrated by comparing features of areas or road segments with the number and type of accidents that have measured or registered there, linking the features and accident data” Nagel [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 12,
Wasserman and Nagel teach the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Claim 11 as described earlier.
Wasserman does not teach wherein the one or more types of population areas comprise one or more types of vehicle density population areas, one or more types of human density population areas, or combinations thereof.
Nagel teaches,
wherein the one or more types of population areas comprise one or more types of vehicle density population areas, one or more types of human density population areas, or combinations thereof.
(Nagel [0014] generated data records are filtered by predefined trigger parameters triggering threshold values of the generated population density parameters
Nagel [0028] a raster of population data 401. The system 1 extracts population density parameters
Nagel [0047] Population density parameters can be further used by the system 1 to isolate area types (urban, second city, suburban, town and rural).)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Wasserman to incorporate the automated traffic and driving pattern recognition teachings of Nagel for “a measuring method for automated traffic and driving pattern recognition and location-dependent measurement and forecast.” (Nagel [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. automated traffic and driving pattern recognition) to a known concept (i.e. intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “predictions of the accident risk for arbitrary areas can be provided. The measuring apparatus (1) is calibrated by comparing features of areas or road segments with the number and type of accidents that have measured or registered there, linking the features and accident data” Nagel [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 13,
Wasserman and Nagel teach the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Wasserman teaches,
wherein the one or more telematics factors associated with one or more vehicles comprise, for a period of time, a type of road driven on by the one or more vehicles, a vehicle density of one or more areas driven in by the one or more vehicles, a speed driven by the one or more vehicles, and a time of day of driving during the period of time for each of the one or more vehicles.
(Wasserman [Col 17, Lines 47-49] Driving time may be segmented further into time categories such as “Early Morning,” “Rush Hour,” “Evening,” “Late Night,” etc
Wasserman [Col 8, Lins 17-19] determine the route, speed, lane position, road-type (e.g. highway, entrance/exit ramp, residential area, etc.)
[Col 12, Lines 57-59] traffic data (e.g., amounts of traffic, average driving speed, traffic speed distribution, and numbers and types of accidents, etc.))
Regarding Claim 14,
Wasserman and Nagel teach the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Claim 13 as described earlier.
Wasserman teaches,
wherein the time of day is defined by a plurality of time windows within a 24-hour day period.
(Wasserman [Col 17, Lines 47-49] Driving time may be segmented further into time categories such as “Early Morning,” “Rush Hour,” “Evening,” “Late Night,” etc)
Regarding Claim 16,
Wasserman and Nagel teach the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Claim 14 as described earlier.
Wasserman teaches,
wherein the plurality of time windows within the 24-hour day period comprise at least one of an early morning window, one or more rush hour windows, a mid-day window, an evening window, and a late night window.
(Wasserman [Col 17, Lines 47-49] Driving time may be segmented further into time categories such as “Early Morning,” “Rush Hour,” “Evening,” “Late Night,” etc)
Regarding Claim 17,
Wasserman and Nagel teach the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Claim 13 as described earlier.
Wasserman teaches,
wherein the one or more telematics factors associated with one or more vehicles further comprise, for the period of time, (i) a contextual speed by time of day reflective of a vehicle speed of the user vehicle at a threshold over a speed limit at a specified time of day; (ii) vehicle congestion of an area by time of day based on the speed driven by the user vehicle; and (iii) one or more features of the user vehicle comprising age, class, style, weight, or combinations thereof.
(Wasserman [Col 17, Lines 47-54] such as “Early Morning,” “Rush Hour,” “Evening,” “Late Night,” etc., each category having a different insurance cost. Other potential driving factors for usage-base parameters including weather categories (e.g., “Clear Driving,” “Rain Driving,” “Snow Driving,” etc.), traffic categories (e.g., “Heavy Traffic Driving,” “Light-Traffic Driving,” etc.)
Wasserman [Col 12, Line 56-59] traffic data (e.g., amounts of traffic, average driving speed, traffic speed distribution, and numbers and types of accidents, etc.) at various times and locations
Wasserman [Col 8, Line 10] stop-and-go traffic
Wasserman [Col 9, Line 66 to Col 10, Line 2] type of their respective vehicles 210 and 220, for example, the make, model, trim (or sub-model), year, and/or engine specifications)
Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 3.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claims 2, 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasserman and Nagel in view of Seth (“SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATED ACCIDENT ANALYSIS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20190244301 A1).
Regarding Claim 2,
Wasserman and Nagel teach the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Wasserman teaches,
associated with the price-per-metric rate of insurance as assigned to the user upon acceptance of the prompt to accept the price-per-metric rate of insurance on the GUI of the mobile device by the user.
(Wasserman [Col 24, Lines 23-35] the driver may have an additional response option corresponding to a request for alternative insurance offers in step 505, rather than only having options to accept or decline the insurance offer. ... allowing to driver to review and select from among several alternative insurance suggestions for the driving trip(s) before accepting any … insurance offer.
Wasserman [Col 17, Lines 61-65] one driver may request per-mile driving insurance prices for a … insurance policy, while another driver may request per-hour or per-day driving insurance prices
Wasserman [Claim 13] display, on the personal mobile device)
Wasserman does not teach display a digital insurance card.
Seth teaches,
display a digital insurance card
(Seth [0054] actuation or selection of the policy details button 520-6 may result in the generation and display of an electronic insurance identification card)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Wasserman to incorporate the digital insurance card teachings of Seth for “the generation and display of an electronic insurance identification card.” (Seth [0054]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. digital insurance card) to a known concept (i.e. intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “actuation or selection of the policy details” Seth [0054])
Regarding Claim 4,
Wasserman and Nagel teach the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Claim 3 as described earlier.
Wasserman teaches,
associated with the updated price-per-metric rate of insurance as assigned to the user on the GUI of the mobile device.
(Wasserman [Col 18, Lines 11-30] the insurance prices determined ... may be adjusted over time based on changes in the driver data and/or vehicle data....may be reduced based a period of accident-free or safe driving by the driver. ...may be increased based on accidents or other insurance claims, moving violations, instances of high-risk driving.... additional driving data may be received indicating that the driver drives more cautiously...In this case, a … insurance system may revise the … insurance prices
Wasserman [Col 17, Lines 61-65] per-mile driving insurance prices for a … insurance policy, ... per-hour or per-day driving insurance prices)
Wasserman does not teach display an updated digital insurance card.
Seth teaches,
display an updated digital insurance card
(Seth [0054] may result in the generation and display of an electronic insurance identification card
Seth [0043] rules causes a determination of an “accident” status, a flag may be updated in a memory or database and/or may be transmitted to various electronic components and/or devices)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Wasserman to incorporate the digital insurance card teachings of Seth for “the generation and display of an electronic insurance identification card.” (Seth [0054]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. digital insurance card) to a known concept (i.e. intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “actuation or selection of the policy details” Seth [0054])
Regarding Claim 8,
Wasserman and Nagel teach the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Claim 7 as described earlier.
Wasserman teaches,
associated with the price-per-metric rate of insurance as assigned to the user upon acceptance of the prompt to accept the updated price-per-metric rate of insurance on the GUI of the mobile device by the user.
(Wasserman [Col 24, Lines 23-35] the driver may have an additional response option corresponding to a request for alternative insurance offers in step 505, rather than only having options to accept or decline the insurance offer. ... allowing to driver to review and select from among several alternative insurance suggestions for the driving trip(s) before accepting any … insurance offer.
Wasserman [Col 17, Lines 61-65] one driver may request per-mile driving insurance prices for a … insurance policy, while another driver may request per-hour or per-day driving insurance prices
Wasserman [Claim 13] display, on the personal mobile device)
Wasserman does not teach display a digital insurance card.
Seth teaches,
display a digital insurance card
(Seth [0054] may result in the generation and display of an electronic insurance identification card)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Wasserman to incorporate the digital insurance card teachings of Seth for “the generation and display of an electronic insurance identification card.” (Seth [0054]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. digital insurance card) to a known concept (i.e. intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “actuation or selection of the policy details” Seth [0054])
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasserman and Nagel in view of Walton (“METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR FLEET MANAGEMENT”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20160358129 A1).
Regarding Claim 15,
Wasserman and Nagel teach the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Claim 14 as described earlier.
Wasserman does not teach wherein the plurality of time windows within the 24-hour day period each comprise a three hour time window defining eight windows as the plurality of time windows.
Walton teaches,
wherein the plurality of time windows within the 24-hour day period each comprise a three hour time window defining eight windows as the plurality of time windows.
(Walton [0033] a three-hour drive
Walton [0040] interval and period may be six, seven, or eight times a day or any other interval within a period, either of which may be fixed, variable, set to default values
Walton [Claim 30] period is six, seven, or eight times a day.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination of Wasserman to incorporate the fleet management teachings of Walton for “analyzing, predicting, and processing an accident.” (Walton [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. fleet management) to a known concept (i.e. intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “analyzing includes identifying a type of the accident based on evidence” Walton [Abstract])
Response to Appeal Brief
Applicant's appeal brief filed on May 15, 2026, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s appeal brief follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
[page 21] “The Examiner appears to assert that independent claims 1, 18, and 20 are directed to
certain methods of organizing human activity. (Office Action, p. 4). Appellant disagrees ….[page 22] independent claims …are not "directed to… any judicial exception such certain methods of organizing human activity … let alone or any other alleged judicial exception such as
mathematical concepts or concepts performed in the human mind."
Examiner responds:
The limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between vehicles and insurance providers. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for an “adjustable price-per-metric rate determination,...determine a price-per- metric rate of insurance for a user ...display, …the price-per-metric rate of insurance for the user…to accept the price-per-metric rate of insurance…assign the price-per-metric rate of insurance to the user” expresses a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“[B]ased on telematics data” amounts to gathering, sharing, and manipulation of data which expresses an Abstract Idea [Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data” was considered part of the abstract idea], and Selecting A Particular Data Source or Type Of Data To Be Manipulated [Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]
To “determine a price-per- metric rate” involves mathematical concepts. However, the Examiner did not reject the claims under mathematical concepts.
Examiner did not reject the claims under Mental Processing; therefore, “performable in a human mind” is not relevant. However, to “determine a price-per- metric rate” expresses an action that can be performed mentally and without pen and paper.
The Applicant states:
[page 24] “Indeed, similar to network packets as technical information that courts have held a
human mind is not equipped to use along with network monitors to detect suspicious activity,
the present claims recite technical information from vehicle telematics data that the human
mind is not equipped to determine, and thus are non-abstract and patent eligible."
Examiner responds:
Neither the Applicant’s claims nor specification mention “network packets” nor “suspicious activity.” So the argument remains moot.
Again, “vehicle telematics data” amounts to gathering, sharing, and manipulation of data which expresses an Abstract Idea [Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data” was considered part of the abstract idea], and Selecting A Particular Data Source or Type Of Data To Be Manipulated [Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]
The Applicant states:
[page 24] “the present claims recite data from additional hardware beyond a computer, such as vehicle telematics data, and are patent eligible. Indeed, by reciting additional hardware beyond a computer, the courts have viewed such language as transforming the recited processor/computer into a non-generic computer.."
Examiner responds:
The Examiner identified the following hardware (in independent Claim 1): “one or more processors; one or more memory components communicatively coupled to the one or more processors; and machine readable instructions stored in the one or more memory components”, “vehicle”, and “mobile device”. The “graphical user interface (GUI)” may also be deemed an additional element (technological component).
However, nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than “merely applying” off-the-shelf, conventional processors, memory components, machine readable instructions, mobile device, vehicle, and display technology for gathering, synthesizing, sending, and presenting the desired information.
The Applicant states:
[page 26] “recite such an integration of any alleged judicial exception into a practical application through at least recitation of the practical application of "determine a price-per-metric rate of insurance for a user of a user vehicle of the one or more vehicles" via a meaningful limitation of "based on the telematics data and independent of user-based factors," as well as at least recitation of the practical application of "assign the price-per-metric rate of insurance to the user for the user vehicle" via a meaningful limitation of "upon acceptance of the prompt to accept the price-per-metric rate of insurance on the GUI of the mobile device by the user."
Examiner responds:
The Examiner asserts that the actions to "determine a price-per-metric rate of insurance for a user …based on the telematics data and independent of user-based factors…assign the price-per-metric rate of insurance to the user…to accept the price-per-metric rate of insurance” all express abstract ideas.
One abstract idea cannot integrate another abstract idea into a practical application. The invention is merely the abstract idea performed on a processor. An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
The Applicant states:
“Applicants further submit that the recitations of amended independent claims 1, 18, and 20 are also analogous to claim 2 of Example 48. "
Examiner responds:
Claim 2 of Example 48 is patent eligible due to specific claim language:
“… (f) synthesizing speech waveforms from the masked clusters, wherein each speech waveform corresponds to a different source sn; (g) combining the speech waveforms to generate a mixed speech signal x' by stitching together the speech waveforms corresponding to the different sources sn, excluding the speech waveform from a target source ss such that the mixed speech signal x' includes speech waveforms from the different sources sn and excludes the speech waveform from the target source;”
Step (f) requires conversion into separate speech signals in the time domain. Synthesizing speech waveforms from a cluster of numbers is not a process that can be practically performed in the human mind.
Step (f) is not a method of organizing human activity because it does not fall within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people.
Similarly, step (g) combines the speech waveforms to generate a mixed speech signal by stitching together speech waveforms corresponding to the different sources excluding the speech signal from a target source.
Moreover, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I states generating a mixed speech signal such that it includes speech signals from different sources and excludes the speech signal from a target source is not a process that can be practically performed in a human mind. Therefore, step (g) is neither a mathematical concept nor a mental process. In addition, step (g) is not a method of organizing human activity because it does not fall within the enumerated sub-groupings.
The instant application in no way mirrors Claim 2 of Example 48. Firstly, it recites an abstract idea for intelligent adjustable price-per-metric rate determination. Next it speaks nothing about synthesizing speech waveforms. No analogy exists.
The Applicant states:
“Indeed, such recitations reflect an improvement in the recited technology to reduce system noise from information that is undesired, which further avoids using additional computing processing resources and provides an improved user interface and more efficient processing
technology "
Examiner responds:
To “reduce system noise from information” again amounts to gathering, sharing, and manipulation of data which expresses an Abstract Idea [Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data” was considered part of the abstract idea], and Selecting A Particular Data Source or Type Of Data To Be Manipulated [Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]
The “system noise” may be considered data. Filtering out data amounts to an abstract idea.
The Applicant states:
“And as set forth in a September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel (ARP)
decision issued by USPTO Director Squires in Ex Parte Desjardins et al., Appeal 2024-
000567, in which the USPTO vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board's rejection under 35
U.S.C. 101 of an AI-related patent application, the ARP decision agree with Appellant's
assertion that the claims recite additional features reflecting an improvement to computer
functioning or other technology or technical via certain limitations "
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s invention is NOT directed to improving machine learning. The Specification reads:
[0013] “Such ratings may, in aspects, be set by AI algorithms and machine learning models.”
[0036] “The machine learning module 316 communicatively coupled to the rate determination module 312 and the telematics sub-module 312A may include an artificial intelligence component to train and provide machine learning capabilities to a neural network”
[0038] “This machine learning application may create models that can be applied by the system 300, to make it more efficient and intelligent in execution. As an example and not a limitation, the machine learning module 316 may include artificial intelligence components”
In Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. Indeed, enumerated improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system. Such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation.
Applicant’s invention incorporates no similar details and is not analogous to Ex Parte Desjardins. Applicant’s invention is “merely applying” generic off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, synthesizing, sending, and presenting the desired information.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant's amendments required the application of no new/additional prior art. However, Examiner combined a secondary reference, Nagel, with the previously anticipated Wasserman primary reference, into a new rejection under 35 USC § 103.
The Applicant states:
[page 9] “Wasserman does not disclose or reasonably suggest at least "based on the telematics data and independent of user-based factors, determine a price-per-metric rate of insurance for a user of a user vehicle of the one or more vehicles"
Examiner responds:
Wasserman teaches, “based on the telematics data and independent of user-based factors, determine a price-per-metric rate of insurance for a user of a user vehicle of the one or more vehicles”:
Wasserman [Abstract] insurance systems, including vehicle-based...to determine and implement … vehicle insurance policies. ... to determine usage-based insurance parameters for vehicle driving
Wasserman [Col 10, Lines 20-27] vehicle sensors, vehicle on-board diagnostic systems (OBDs) and other vehicle-based systems and/or vehicle communication systems, may collect and/or transmit data pertaining to autonomous driving of the vehicles. In autonomous driving, the vehicle fulfills all or part of the driving without being piloted by a human. An autonomous car can be also referred to as a driverless car, self-driving car, or robot car.
Examiner notes the Specification reads [0007] “independent of user-based factors such as age, marital status, driving score, and the like.” Examiner notes a “driverless” or “robot” car cannot have a marital status
Furthermore, Nagel more explicitly teaches, based on the telematics data and independent of user-based factors:
Nagel [0016] the present invention allows to provide motor risk-transfer that dynamically charges the risk-exposed person for “what he uses” (UBI insurance). Based in the implementation of dynamic telematics capturing… Further differences and advantages are (i) the present invention does not need to know personal data concerning the vehicle driver, as e.g. age, sex, historical accident statistics etc.
Nagel [0012] The system should be enabled to measure and operate solely based on non-insurance related measuring parameters, i.e. the measuring should be provided without specific knowledge of the car driver, in particular relying on geospatial contexting for telematics-based, dynamic risk measurements.
The Applicant states:
[page 13] “Such a display of an existing electronic insurance identification card per actuation of a policy details button and for automated accident analysis systems and methods as set forth in
Seth is not reasoanbly equivalent to display of a digitial insurance card associated with and
after acceptance of a price-per-metric rate of insurance."
Examiner responds:
Seth teaches “display of a digitial insurance card associated with and after acceptance of a ... rate of insurance”
Seth [0054] actuation or selection of the policy details button 520-6 may result in the generation and display of an electronic insurance identification card
Wasserman teaches price-per-metric (rate of insurance):
Wasserman [Col 17, Lines 61-65] one driver may request per-mile driving insurance prices for a … insurance policy, while another driver may request per-hour or per-day driving insurance prices
Examiner maintains the combination of references teach, “display a digital insurance card associated with the price-per-metric rate of insurance as assigned to the user upon acceptance of the prompt to accept the price-per-metric rate of insurance on the GUI of the mobile device by the user”:
Seth [0054] actuation or selection of the policy details button 520-6 may result in the generation and display of an electronic insurance identification card
Wasserman [Col 24, Lines 23-35] the driver may have an additional response option corresponding to a request for alternative insurance offers in step 505, rather than only having options to accept or decline the insurance offer. ... allowing to driver to review and select from among several alternative insurance suggestions for the driving trip(s) before accepting any … insurance offer.
Wasserman [Col 17, Lines 61-65] one driver may request per-mile driving insurance prices for a … insurance policy, while another driver may request per-hour or per-day driving insurance prices
Wasserman [Claim 13] display, on the personal mobile device
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In reMerck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because "[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA]." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gross (“SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING MOBILITY INSURANCE PRODUCTS USING RIDE-SHARING TELEMATICS DATA”, U.S. Patent Number: US 11954736 B1) proposes determining an optimal insurance product for a driver operating a vehicle for a transportation network company.
Rao (“DYNAMIC PRICING OF INSURANCE POLICIES FOR SHARED GOODS”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20200118215 A1) proposes determining an optimal insurance product for a driver operating a vehicle for a transportation network company.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Tran, can be reached on (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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights