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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and that “as
stated in the August 4, 2025 USPTO memorandum (Kim, Charles “Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 USC 101” August 4, 2025), “a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitations(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. For instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claimed limitations”.
In response, it is correctly stated that “… a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitations(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. For instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claimed limitations…”.
However, the claims now as amended still fall short the 35 USC 101 requirement. As an example, claim 1 now recites:
a modeling component configured to process data and generate a plurality of models using the data; a communications component configured to exchange the data with a plurality of computing devices including a data source and a user computing device associated with a driver of the operating vehicle; and
at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, the modeling component, and the communications component, the at least one processor configured to:
“receive, by executing the communications component a data signal from the user computing device, the data signal indicating a request for insurance coverage for providing rides as a transportation network company (TNC) driver;
receive, by executing the communications component, current conditions data from the data source, the current conditions data associated with current conditions of an area where the rides are to be provided;
generate, in real-time by executing the modeling component the optimized model configured to output a price amount for the requested insurance coverage by an insurance provider by applying the current conditions data to the optimized model; and
transmit by executing the communications component computer instructions to a remote computing device, the computer instructions causing the remote computing device to electronically transfer funds equal to the price amount from an account associated with the TNC driver to the insurance provider so that the requested insurance coverage is applied to the rides.
The applicant’s arguments are not convincing because the specific functions of receiving, generating and transmitting could be performed in the human mind, and/or by a human being using a pen and paper without the need of any computer or other machine. Furthermore, the function of generate[ing] “…a price amount for the requested insurance coverage by an insurance provider by applying current conditions data to an optimized model” involves a fundamental business practice long prevalent in business systems, like the risk hedging in Bilski (see Bilski v. Kappos, 561 US 593 (2010)), the intermediated settlement in Alice (see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356-57 ), verifying credit card transactions in CyberSource (see CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011)), and guaranteeing transactions (see buy SAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
The elements or components and computer devices of Applicant’s independent claims can be performed mentally and manually using, at most, pen and paper to determine the price amount for the requested insurance coverage. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372-73 (“[A] method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under § 101.”); see also In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[M]ental processes-or processes of human thinking-standing alone are not patentable even if they have practical application.”); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature . . . , mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work” (emphasis added)). Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper, CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalkv. Benson.”).
Applicant is also directed to the 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary mental processes including observations, evaluations, and judgments).
Also, it is noted that the claimed components with the computing device[a] are seen as a generic computer performing generic functions without an inventive concept as such does not amount to significantly more. These devices are simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular environment. The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
The applicant is merely using alternate ways of using a computer for allowing a user to
compute or generate a price amount for a requested insurance coverage.
Therefore the claims still recite an abstract idea itself.
Applicant’s representative then argues that the claims are directed to a significantly more than the abstract idea and that the claims include a combination of limitations that operate in an non-conventional and non-generic way to outputting an optimized insurance value for a specific TNC driver.
In response, the applicant is making use of generic devices to perform or process funds transfer of a prices amount from an account associated with a TNC driver to an insurance provider so that the request insurance coverage is applied to a ride. The claims are void of anything significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
The additional elements of the computing device with a memory and communications components when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The computing devices with a memory and communication and analysis components taken individually or as a whole are seen as general purpose computer or a computer system (see the applicant’s specification). These claimed devices are noted to perform routine computer functions such as receiving data, generating data, and transmitting data.
The claimed computing device with a processor, memory and associated computer components are also seen as a generic computer performing generic functions without an inventive concept as such does not amount to significantly more. The computing devices and their components are simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular environment. The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., the Courts held that claims to a method for making websites easier to navigate on a small-screen device were not directed to an abstract idea. 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, the claims are not drafted in the format CoreWireless.
The computer or computing device with a processor and memory along with communications component are then applied to the abstract idea.
The claims do not provide sufficient details to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. See, e.g. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (explaining that claims that “amount to ‘nothing significantly more’ than an instruction to apply the abstract idea…using some unspecified, generic computer” is not ‘enough’ to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention” (quoting Mayo, 566, U.S. at 77, 79)); Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Capital One Fin.Corp., 850 F. 3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim language here provides only a result-oriented-solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it”).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claims as now amended are rejected as found below.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claim 1 is directed to a system. Claims 8 and 15 are directed to a method. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
The claims when the bolded limitations are removed recite the following limitations:
Claim 1 recites:
a modeling component configured to process data and generate a plurality of models using the data; a communications component configured to exchange the data with a plurality of computing devices including a data source and a user computing device associated with a driver of the operating vehicle; and
at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, the modeling component, and the communications component, the at least one processor configured to:
“receive, by executing the communications component a data signal from the user computing device, the data signal indicating a request for insurance coverage for providing rides as a transportation network company (TNC) driver;
receive, by executing the communications component, current conditions data from the data source, the current conditions data associated with current conditions of an area where the rides are to be provided;
generate, in real-time by executing the modeling component the optimized model configured to output a price amount for the requested insurance coverage by an insurance provider by applying the current conditions data to the optimized model; and
transmit by executing the communications component computer instructions to a remote computing device, the computer instructions causing the remote computing device to electronically transfer funds equal to the price amount from an account associated with the TNC driver to the insurance provider so that the requested insurance coverage is applied to the rides.
Claim 2 recites: wherein the data signal further indicates initiation of providing rides as the TNC driver.
Claim 3 recites wherein the optimized model is generated by applying one or more machine learning programs to historical conditions data and historical driver data of a plurality of drivers.
Claim 4 recites wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit by executing the communications component a message to an insurance provider computing device associated with the insurance provider indicating completion of the rides provided to terminate the requested insurance coverage.
Claim 5 recites wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
transmit by executing the communications component, a message to the user computing device indicating that the requested insurance coverage has been initiated; and
upon completion of the rides provided, transmit by executing the communications component, an additional message to the user computing device indicating the requested insurance coverage has been terminated.
Claim 6 recites wherein the at least one processor is in communication with a third-party, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive by executing the communications component a user request from the user computing device for a purchase from the third-party; and
transmit by executing the communications component funds to the third-party from the account.
Claim 7 recites wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
initiate, in real-time, the requested insurance coverage for the TNC driver of the operating vehicle; and upon completion of the rides provided:
compare, by executing the telematics analysis component telematics data to historical telematics data, the telematics data associated with the TNC driver and the rides provided, the historical telematics data associated with a plurality of drivers;
determine, based upon the comparison, a comparison threshold for the TNC driver; and automatically deposit a reward to the account of the TNC driver based upon the comparison threshold of the TNC driver.
Claim recites 8: applying an optimized model to an operating vehicle, the method implemented by a computing device having:
(i) a modeling component configured to process data and generate a plurality of models using the data, (ii) a communications component configured to exchange the data with a plurality of computing devices including a data source and a user computing device associated with a driver of the operating vehicle, and (ii) at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, the modeling component, and the communications component, the method comprising:
receiving, by executing the communications component, a data signal from the user computing device, the data signal indicating a request for insurance coverage for providing rides as a transportation network company (TNC) driver;
receiving, by executing the communications component, current conditions data from the data source, the current conditions data associated with current conditions of an area where the rides are to be provided;
generating, by executing the modeling component the optimized model configured to output a price amount for the requested insurance coverage by an insurance provider by applying the current conditions data to the optimized model; and
transmitting by executing the communications component, computer instructions to a remote computing device, the computer instructions causing the remote computing device to electronically transfer funds equal to the price amount from an account associated with the TNC driver to the insurance provider so that the requested insurance coverage is applied to the rides.
Claim 9 recites: wherein the data signal further indicates initiation of providing rides as the TNC driver.
Claim 10 recites wherein the optimized model is generated by applying one or more machine learning programs to historical conditions data and historical driver data of a plurality of drivers.
Claim 11 recites further comprising transmitting by executing the communications component a message to an insurance provider computing device associated with the insurance provider indicating completion of the rides provided to terminate the requested insurance coverage.
Claim 12 recites further comprising:
transmitting by executing the communications component a message to the user computing device indicating that the requested insurance coverage has been initiated; and
upon completion of the rides provided, transmitting by executing the communications component an additional message to the user computing device indicating the requested insurance coverage has been terminated.
Claim 13 recites wherein the at least one processor is in communication with a third-party, and wherein the method further comprises:
receiving by executing the communications component, a user request from the user computing device for a purchase from the third-party; and
transmitting funds by executing the communications component to the third-party from the account.
Claim 14 recites initiating, in real-time, the requested insurance coverage for the TNC driver of the operating vehicle; and upon completion of the rides provided:
comparing by executing the telematics analysis component telematics data to historical telematics data, the telematics data associated with the TNC driver and the rides provided, the historical telematics data associated with a plurality of drivers;
determining, based upon the comparison, a comparison threshold for the TNC driver; and automatically depositing a reward to the account of the TNC driver based upon the comparison threshold of the TNC driver.
Claim 15 recites: At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, when executed by a computing device for applying an optimized model to an operating vehicle, the computer device having (i) a modeling component configured to process data and generate a plurality of models using the data, (ii) a communications component configured to exchange the data with a plurality of computing devices including a data source and a user computing device associated with a driver of the operating vehicle and (ii) at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, the modeling component, and the communications component the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor to:
receive, by executing the communications component a data signal from the user computing device, the data signal indicating a request for insurance coverage for providing rides as a transportation network company (TNC) driver;
receive, by executing the communications component, current conditions data from the data source, the current conditions data associated with current conditions of an area where the rides are to be provided;
generate, by executing the modeling component the optimized model configured to output a price amount for the requested insurance coverage by an insurance provider by applying the current conditions data to the optimized model; and
transmit by executing the communications component, computer instructions to a remote computing device, the computer instructions causing the remote computing device to electronically transfer funds equal to the price amount from an account associated with the TNC driver to the insurance provider so that the requested insurance coverage is applied to the rides.
Claim 16 recites wherein the data signal further indicates initiation of providing rides as the TNC driver.
Claim 17 recites wherein the optimized model is generated by applying one or more machine learning programs to historical conditions data and historical driver data of a plurality of drivers.
Claim 18 recites wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to transmit by executing the communications component, a message to an insurance provider computing device associated with the insurance provider indicating completion of the rides provided to terminate the requested insurance coverage.
Claim 19 recites wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
transmit by executing the communications component, a message to the user computing device indicating that the requested insurance coverage has been initiated; and
upon completion of the rides provided, transmit by executing the communications component, an additional message to the user computing device indicating the requested insurance coverage has been terminated.
Claim 20 recites wherein the at least one processor is in communication with a third-party,
and wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
receive by executing the communications component, a user request from the user computing device for a purchase from the third-party; and
transmit by executing the communications component, funds to the third-party from the account.
As per claims 1, 8 and 15, applicant is to be noted that the steps or functions of “receive” or “receiving” are considered as data gathering functions.
The functions of “generate” or “generating” involve mental processes and/or generic computer functions.
The function of “transmitting” involves an insignificant post solution activity.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as performing a fundamental economic principle or practice (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) because it amounts to the functions of generating, a price amount for the requested insurance coverage by an insurance provider by applying the current conditions data to the optimized model.
These functions are also viewed as mental/manual processes.
The BRI of the claimed limitations describe functions of :
generate, by executing a modeling component the optimized model to output a price amount for the requested insurance coverage by an insurance provider by applying the current conditions data to the optimized model, and transfer funds equal to the price amount from an account associated with the TNC driver to the insurance provider so that the requested insurance coverage is applied to the rides.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the bolded limitations noted above as understood to be the additional limitations:
The claimed “computing device”, “modeling component”, “telematics analysis component”, “communications component”, “processor” with “memory” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or computer system.
Performing steps or functions by a computing device, processor or memory merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05.
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to
insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
Generating data such as a price amount is similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The functions of the claims in the instant application are performed by one or more processors or computing device which collects data, stores data and generate data and transmit data.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of functions of :
“generate[ing], by executing a modeling component, the optimized model configured to output, a price amount for the requested insurance coverage by an insurance provider by applying the current conditions data to the optimized model, and transmit[ing] computer instructions to a remote computing device, the computer instructions causing the remote computing device to electronically transfer funds equal to the price amount from an account associated with the TNC driver to the insurance provider so that the requested insurance coverage is applied to the rides. ”.
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claims fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Receiving and transmitting data by electronic means or hardware amount to receiving data over a network has been recognized by the courts as routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)UD, citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (Utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir. 2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 B.Ad 1359, 1363, Lis USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network}, buySAFE, fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Positively reciting a “computing device”, a processor with memory”, a communications component, telematics analysis, and “modeling component” does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. The claimed computing device and processor with memory and computer components are noted to a be a generic computer for collecting data and performing routine and conventional functions therein. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “computing device”, “processor with memory”, “telematics analysis component”, and ”communications component” are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest:
“generate, by executing a modeling component, the optimized model configured to
output a price amount for the requested insurance coverage by an insurance provider by applying the current conditions data to the optimized model, and transmit by executing the communications component computer instructions to a remote computing device, the computer instructions causing the remote computing device to electronically transfer funds equal to the price amount from an account associated with the TNC driver to the insurance provider so that the requested insurance coverage is applied to the rides” as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claims 8 and 15.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Anderson W. can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
January 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights