Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/19/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-22 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/19/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection has been considered and is persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 16, that the claimed invention extend beyond mere manual comparison of receipts to a logbook or automation of a business review of toll bills. Applicant argues The claimed data handling of the independent and dependent claims, including the normalizing and correlating for link and dataset generation, can then be used in the identification and presentation of the sensor-related discrepancies relating to the sensor reads, for instance transponder failure or other hardware based failures.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as checking for errors in toll bills for vehicles in a fleet. (see specification, Par. 0002). Examiner notes that if the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)). Here, the claim limitations discuss the steps of correlating toll transaction points and telematic data points for checking errors as mentioned in the disclosure. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues, on pages 15-16, that the amended independent claims presented herewith therefore recite a technical solution via an interactive user interface to a technical problem of sensor-related discrepancies relating to sensor reads.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements (computing system, vehicle transponder, telematic tracker, interactive user interface) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. (See MPEP 2106.05(a)) Here, the alleged improvement(s) are to the prevention of fraud and error rates in toll data and not to a technology or technical field. Additionally, examiner notes that the alleged technical solution to a technical problem of sensor related discrepancies relating to sensor reads is considered part of the abstract idea, as claimed. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Novelty/Non-obviousness
The closest prior art of record is included in the previous action mailed on 10/20/2025. The claims would be considered allowable if re-written or amended to overcome the rejections in this office action.
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 for not being directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 22 encompasses a transitory medium given the claim's broadest reasonable interpretation in light of paragraphs [0182-0186] of the specification. Such media have been held to be ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The Examiner notes claim 22 has been interpreted as not being directed to a statutory category. The following rejection below has been provided as if claim 22 has been interpreted as being properly directed to a statutory category.*
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Claim 21 is directed to a system with multiple components, and therefore is a machine.
Claim 22 is directed to a non-transitory* computer readable media and therefore are an article of manufacture.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
A method … for generating a correlated trip dataset, the method comprising:
accessing a plurality of toll transaction data points incurred by a … a vehicle of a vehicle fleet passing through one or more toll checkpoints;
receiving a plurality of telematic data points from … the vehicle of the vehicle fleet;
comparing the plurality of toll transaction data points with the plurality of telematic data points;
based on comparing the plurality of toll transaction data points and the plurality of telematic data points, identifying one or more toll transaction data points of the plurality of toll transaction data points that correspond to one or more telematic data points of the plurality of telematic data points, wherein the one or more toll transaction data points corresponds to the one or more telematic data points based on one or more shared characteristics between the one or more toll transaction data points and the one or more telematic data points;
generating a plurality of correlation links for the one or more toll transaction data points and the one or more telematic data points, each correlation link being configured to correlate a particular toll transaction data point to a particular telematic data point;
generating a correlated dataset comprising the plurality of toll transaction data points correlated to the plurality of telematic data points based on the plurality of correlation links, wherein the correlated dataset presents a sensor-related discrepancy relating to a sensor read; and
… for presenting, at least in part, the correlated dataset, … corresponding to the one or more toll transaction data points and the plurality of telematic data points, wherein selection … corresponding to a toll transaction data point of the one or more toll transaction data points displays toll transaction information from the corresponding toll transaction data point and identifies the sensor-related discrepancy presented by the correlated dataset and relating to the sensor read.
The limitation of Claim 21 recites:
accessing a plurality of toll transaction data points incurred by … a vehicle of a vehicle fleet passing through one or more toll checkpoints;
receiving a plurality of telematic data points from … the vehicle of the vehicle fleet;
comparing the plurality of toll transaction data points with the plurality of telematic data points;
based on comparing the plurality of toll transaction data points and the plurality of telematic data points, identifying one or more toll transaction data points of the plurality of toll transaction data points that correspond to one or more telematic data points of the plurality of telematic data points, wherein the one or more toll transaction data points corresponds to the one or more telematic data points based on one or more shared characteristics between the one or more toll transaction data points and the one or more telematic data points;
generating a plurality of correlation links for the one or more toll transaction data points and the one or more telematic data points, each correlation link being configured to correlate a particular toll transaction data point to a particular telematic data point;
generating a correlated dataset comprising the plurality of toll transaction data points correlated to the plurality of telematic data points based on the plurality of correlation links, wherein the correlated dataset presents a sensor- related discrepancy relating to a sensor read; and
… presenting, at least in part, the correlated dataset, … corresponding to the one or more toll transaction data points and the plurality of telematic data points, wherein selection … corresponding to a toll transaction data point of the one or more toll transaction data points displays toll transaction information from the corresponding toll transaction data point and identifies the sensor-related discrepancy presented by the correlated dataset and relating to the sensor read.
The limitation of Claim 22 recites:
accessing a plurality of toll transaction data points incurred by … a vehicle of a vehicle fleet passing through one or more toll checkpoints;
receiving a plurality of telematic data points from … the vehicle of the vehicle fleet;
comparing the plurality of toll transaction data points with the plurality of telematic data points;
based on comparing the plurality of toll transaction data points and the plurality of telematic data points, identifying one or more toll transaction data points of the plurality of toll transaction data points that correspond to one or more telematic data points of the plurality of telematic data points, wherein the one or more toll transaction data points corresponds to the one or more telematic data points based on one or more shared characteristics between the one or more toll transaction data points and the one or more telematic data points;
generating a plurality of correlation links for the one or more toll transaction data points and the one or more telematic data points, each correlation link being configured to correlate a particular toll transaction data point to a particular telematic data point;
generating a correlated dataset comprising the plurality of toll transaction data points correlated to the plurality of telematic data points based on the plurality of correlation links, wherein the correlated dataset presents a sensor- related discrepancy relating to a sensor read; and
… presenting, at least in part, the correlated dataset, … corresponding to the one or more toll transaction data points and the plurality of telematic data points, wherein selection … corresponding to a toll transaction data point of the one or more toll transaction data points displays toll transaction information from the corresponding toll transaction data point and identifies the sensor-related discrepancy presented by the correlated dataset and relating to the sensor read.
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as checking for errors in toll bills for vehicles in a fleet. The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
Computing system
Vehicle transponder
Telematic tracker
generating and presenting an interactive user interface … the interactive user interface including a geographical map and graphical elements
Claim 21:
A computer system including:
one or more hardware processors;
one or more hardware storage devices; and
program instructions stored on the one or more hardware storage devices for execution by the one or more hardware processors to perform:
Vehicle transponder
Telematic tracker
generating and presenting an interactive user interface … the interactive user interface including a geographical map and graphical elements
Claim 22:
A computer program product including:
at least one non-transitory* computer readable media storing instructions for execution by one or more hardware processors to perform:
Vehicle transponder
Telematic tracker
generating and presenting an interactive user interface … the interactive user interface including a geographical map and graphical elements
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-20 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-20 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 15:
A toll information database
Claim 17:
A toll checkpoint database
Claim 18:
A tag fee database
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628