DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] 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
[2] 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6 April 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
[3] This communication is in response to the Amendment and the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 6 April 2026. It is noted that this application is a Continuation of United States Patent Application Serial No. 17/524,540 filed 11 November 2021, now United States Patent No. 12,079,778, which benefits from Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 63/113,389 filed 13 November 2020. Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17, and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continuation Application
[4] This application is a Continuation of United States Patent Application Serial No. 17/524,540 filed 11 November 2021, now United States Patent No. 12,079,778, which benefits from the effective filing date of 13 November 2020. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b), All documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application.
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.
[5] Previous rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more has/have not been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are maintained. The revised statement of rejection presented below is necessitated by amendment and addresses the present amendments to the pending claims.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05). Claim(s) 1-20 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a method, a system, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1, 8, and 15 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of classifying a vehicular trips as for personal use or for work based upon similarity in operation features, which is reasonably considered to be method of limited to claimed ineligible Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations) and further steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions). In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed illustrates a sequence of observations and comparisons of operational features of vehicle trips and using mathematical processes to quantify values and facilitate the comparisons, which is an ineligible inventive process limited to claimed mathematical calculations and human mental observations and evaluations (See at least paragraphs [0042] [0046] [0058] [0076] [0077] in which the specification identifies mathematical operations to vectorize and quantify differences between sets of operation features during a trip).
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to the implementation of Mathematical Concepts as ineligible abstract ideas (See at least Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); and Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978)). Further, the courts consider steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further, mental processes or concepts performed in the human mind including observation and evaluation are considered to be ineligible abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to Mathematical Concepts, as presented by amendment, representative claim 1 recites:
“…generating…a first set of baseline operation feature vectors based at least on the first set of baseline operation features, a second set of baseline operation feature vectors based at least on the second set of baseline operation features, and a set of respective representative operation feature vectors based at least on the respective representative operation features; classifying the unlabeled vehicular trip as a work trip when a first threshold amount of the set of respective representative operation feature vectors is determined to deviate from respective corresponding portions of the first set of baseline operation feature vectors; and classifying the unlabeled vehicular trip as a personal trip when a second threshold amount of the set of respective representative operation feature vectors is determined to not deviate from respective corresponding portions of the second set of baseline operation feature vectors…”
NOTE: Examiner notes paragraphs [0042] [0046] [0058] [0076] [0077] of the Specification in which the specification identifies mathematical operations to vectorize and quantify differences between sets of operation features during a trip associated with the claimed generation of vectors and comparisons including vector deviation and thresholds. Accordingly, these limitations are reasonably considered to encompass/require mathematical operations as interpreted in light of the supportive disclosure.
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 1 recites:
“…identifying, based at least on a first set of historic telematics data classified as work use, a first set of baseline operation features associated with a first set of historic vehicular trips; identifying, based at least on a second set of historic telematics data classified as personal use, a second set of baseline operation features associated with a second set of historic vehicular trips identifying, based at least on the respective segment of unlabeled telematics data, respective representative operation features associated with the respective segment of unlabeled telematics data; classifying the unlabeled vehicular trip as a work trip when a first threshold amount of the set of respective representative operation feature vectors is determined to deviate from respective corresponding portions of the first set of baseline operation feature vectors; and classifying the unlabeled vehicular trip as a personal trip when a second threshold amount of the set of respective representative operation feature vectors is determined to not deviate from respective corresponding portions of the second set of baseline operation feature vectors…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited processor and code, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that execution of the noted mental observations and comparisons and processes employing mathematical processes are practicable/performable by a human using pen and paper. By extension, given the stated mathematical relationships and input features, one of ordinary skill would be capable of identifying data and underlying features of the data, identifying deviations in the data from established or historical patterns, and classifying trips based on the observed deviation by employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101)..
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite technical elements which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
As presented by amendment, technical elements identified in claim 1 are limited to: “one or more processors” and “one or more sensors”. Claim 1 further indicates, generally, that the claimed method is “computer-implemented” as designated in the preamble. Claims 8 and 15, directed to a system and non-transitory computer-readable medium also include “one or more processors” and further introduce processor-executable “instructions” as engaged in a general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “one or more processors” and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions. The “one or more processors” are further identified as performing the step of generating the sets of feature vectors (Reasonably considered to encompass/require execution of mathematical operations as interpreted in light of the supportive disclosure paragraphs [0042] [0046] [0058] [0076] [0077] of the Specification).
(2) As presented by amendment, claim 1 identifies functions performed by the “one or more sensors” as “…activating one or more sensors during which a vehicle operator operated an unlabeled vehicle to collect a respective segment of unlabeled telematics data for a set of unlabeled telematics data associated with an unlabeled vehicular trip, wherein the one or more sensors are activated to obtain telematics data when the telematics data exceeds a predetermined volume threshold, and the one or more sensors are deactivated to not obtain the telematics data when the telematics data does not exceed the predetermined volume threshold;…”
With respect to the indication that the previously recited travel data is obtained using the above sensor and electronic system arrangement as presented by amendment, as presently structures, the limitation merely describes a process executed external to the claimed method steps in gathering the requisite travel data. Accordingly, as present constructed, the sensor-based data does not place any limits on the claimed subject matter other than to describe how the data was collected prior to being received and utilized by the claimed method. Accordingly, the sensor-based data gathering is limited to mere data gathering and generating an output at a high level of generality and, by extension, are reasonably understood to constitute insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
NOTE: For Applicant’s Benefit, Examiner suggests amendments where possible within the constraints of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) to recite/integrate activation and deactivation of sensor groups with segmented data collection including and system/programmatic control or adjustment to the threshold or segment collection of data to correspond to segments within a trip. Any adjustment or dynamic/adaptive features controlling the targeted generation of the driving behavioral data in conjunction with the threshold-based generation of compartmentalized data associated with individual trips could assist in overcoming the maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, as presented, the sensor-based data collection is reasonably understood to constitute generic data collection, i.e., extra solution activity.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere 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); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., telematics data is obtained/collected, operation features are identified from data, vectors are determined and mathematical processes are performed to determine classification of vehicle trips etc.) as associated with a respective “computer-implemented method”, “one or more processors” and/or “instructions”. Beyond the general statement that method is computer implemented and the system includes a processor and code, the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the “processor” and “instructions” in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “computer-implemented” or “by a processor”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., sensor-gathered travel/telematics data); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., telematics and travel data); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., applying and adjusting a mathematical models and identifying data and underlying features of the data, identifying deviations in the data from established or historical patterns, and classifying trips based on the observed deviation) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of classifying vehicular trips as for personal use or for work based upon similarity in operation features using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed classifying vehicular trips as for personal use or for work based upon similarity in operation features benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0210]-[0212] and [0220]-[0221]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
As presented by amendment, the claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “one or more processors” and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions. The “one or more processors” are further identified as performing the step of generating the sets of feature vectors (Reasonably considered to encompass/require execution of mathematical operations as interpreted in light of the supportive disclosure paragraphs [0042] [0046] [0058] [0076] [0077] of the Specification).
(2) As presented by amendment, claim 1 identifies functions performed by the “one or more sensors” as “…activating one or more sensors during which a vehicle operator operated an unlabeled vehicle to collect a respective segment of unlabeled telematics data for a set of unlabeled telematics data associated with an unlabeled vehicular trip, wherein the one or more sensors are activated to obtain telematics data when the telematics data exceeds a predetermined volume threshold, and the one or more sensors are deactivated to not obtain the telematics data when the telematics data does not exceed the predetermined volume threshold;…”
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., sensor-gathered travel/telematics data); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., telematics and travel data); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., applying and adjusting a mathematical models and identifying data and underlying features of the data, identifying deviations in the data from established or historical patterns, and classifying trips based on the observed deviation).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of classifying vehicular trips as for personal use or for work based upon similarity in operation features. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., classifying vehicular trips as for personal use or for work based upon similarity in operation features, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of classifying vehicular trips as for personal use or for work based upon similarity in operation features benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claims 8 and 15, directed to an apparatus/system and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
As presented by amendment, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, recite additional features of comparing operating feature vectors to determine deviations and associated classifications which are performable by human mental processesing as applied to claim 1 above. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
Allowable Subject Matter
[6] Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and pursuant to approval of a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome Double Patenting rejection(s), set forth in this Office action.
Subject Matter Overcoming Art of Record
[7] The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the allowable subject matter of claim 1. The prior art of record fails to define a method including:
“…activating one or more sensors during which a vehicle operator operated an unlabeled vehicle to collect a respective segment of unlabeled telematics data for a set of unlabeled telematics data associated with an unlabeled vehicular trip, wherein the one or more sensors are activated to obtain telematics data when the telematics data exceeds a predetermined volume threshold, and the one or more sensors are deactivated to not obtain the telematics data when the telematics data does not exceed the predetermined volume threshold; identifying, based at least on a first set of historic telematics data classified as work use, a first set of baseline operation features associated with a first set of historic vehicular trips; identifying, based at least on a second set of historic telematics data classified as personal use, a second set of baseline operation features associated with a second set of historic vehicular trips; identifying, based at least on the respective segment of unlabeled telematics data, respective representative operation features associated with the respective segment of unlabeled telematics data; generating, by one or more processors, a first set of baseline operation feature vectors based at least on the first set of baseline operation features, a second set of baseline operation feature vectors based at least on the second set of baseline operation features, and a set of respective representative operation feature vectors based at least on the respective representative operation features; classifying the unlabeled vehicular trip as a work trip when a first threshold amount of the set of respective representative operation feature vectors is determined to deviate from respective corresponding portions of the first set of baseline operation feature vectors; and classifying the unlabeled vehicular trip as a personal trip when a second threshold amount of the set of respective representative operation feature vectors is determined to not deviate from respective corresponding portions of the second set of baseline operation feature vectors...”
The most closely applicable prior art of record is presented herein as ‘cited not applied’ to Krieg et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0123749). Krieg et al. provides a system and method which utilize a classification model to analyze vehicle telematics data associated with business and personal vehicular travel to generate a probability that a trip is a business or personal trip. The system and method include distinct sets of vehicle telematics data associated with specified personal or business trips during the training of the model. The system and method further utilize a scoring and threshold-based process to classify trips as business or personal based on features of the trip derived from the vehicle telematics data.
While Krieg et al. et al. is similar to the instant application in many respects, there are clear patentable distinctions. While Krieg et al. discloses a comparison of features of a trip derived from vehicle telematics data to features associated with known business and personal trips to determine a probability of the trip being a personal or business trip, Krieg fails to specify that the derived features and transformed into a set of vectors during either the training of the classification model or the determination of an input/unlabeled trip as personal or business. By extension, the model-based classification of Krieg fails to specify transformation of first, second, and representative sets of telematics data into sets of features vectors to generate a comparative set of feature vectors. Lastly, Krieg et al. disclose applying a score and threshold, generally, to produce a probability that a trip is business or personal. However, Krieg does not determine a classification of an unlabeled trip based on a threshold deviation of a set of representative operation feature vectors associated with an unlabeled trip to first and second sets of baseline operational feature vectors derived from telematics data corresponding to personal and work trips.
Double Patenting
[8] The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,079,778. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The current invention and the issued ‘778 patent are drawn to methods and systems for analyzing vehicle operational telematics data to classify vehicular trips and work or personal. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are all directed to similar methods and systems for generating feature vector sets from telematics data and applying modelled similarity comparisons to the data to classify trips. Further, the distinctions between the claims of the instant application and the ‘778 patent are limited to a rewording of common features and to omissions of elements recited in the claims. Examiner further notes that the omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375. For these reasons, the claims of the instant application are not identical to claims 1-20 of U.S Patent No. 12,079,778, but they are not patently distinct.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[9] Applicant's remarks filed 6 April 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows: NOTE: For Applicant’s Benefit, Examiner suggests amendments where possible within the constraints of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) to recite/integrate activation and deactivation of sensor groups with segmented data collection including and system/programmatic control or adjustment to the threshold or segment collection of data to correspond to segments within a trip. Any adjustment or dynamic/adaptive features controlling the targeted generation of the driving behavioral data in conjunction with the threshold-based generation of compartmentalized data associated with individual trips could assist in overcoming the maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, as presented, the sensor-based data collection is reasonably understood to constitute generic data collection, i.e., extra solution activity.
[i] Applicant’s remarks in response to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 12 January 2026 are reasonably considered to have been fully addressed in the context of the revised rejection of the claims presented above responsive to the amendments to the subject claims and in consideration of the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05) and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update), published in the Federal Register, 17 July 2024. Additionally, Applicant substantially rehashes arguments previously presented in the prior response. These arguments are addressed in accordance with Examiner’s response in the prior Office Action(s) mailed 12 January 2026, incorporated in their entirety in response.
Conclusion
[10] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cited NON-PATENT Literature:
Siami et al., A Mobile Telematics Pattern Recognition Framework for Driving Behavior Extraction, 2020-02-06, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems (Volume: 22, Issue: 3, 2021, Page(s): 1459-1472): Relevant Teachings: Siami discloses a system/method that provides supervised training of a model to predict driving behavior. The publication establishes at least applying learning algorithms to telematics data collected using a personal smartphone to predict driving behavior is common practice in the art.
Cited PATENT Literature:
Kubo, CREW SCHEDULING SYSTEM AND CREW SCHEDULING METHOD, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0116551, paragraphs [0043]-[0048]: Relevant Teachings: Kubo discloses a system/method that includes steps/functions tracking of vehicle travel data to identify patterns associated with different types of trips. The system/method include gathering data in accordance with defined trip segments.
Dai et al., IDENTIFYING PURPOSE-BASED ORIGIN-DESTINATION USING CALL DETAILED RECORDS, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0304363, paragraphs [0043]-[0054]: Relevant Teachings: Dai discloses a system/method that includes steps/functions utilizing segmented telephony data to classify personal locations in accordance with types of locations/activities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights