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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
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 they recite non-patentable subject matter under MPEP § 2106 (e.g., the 2019 PEG, October update). The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea, etc.) without practical application or significantly more.
More particularly, 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. 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), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Broad categories of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas. See, generally Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. __ (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294, 1297-98 (2012)); Federal Register notice titled 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 74618), which is found at: http:// www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf; 2015 Update to the Interim Guidance; the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019; and associated Office memoranda.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 1, the claimed invention, taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a process (i.e., a method), machine (e.g., system, etc.), article of manufacture (e.g., a non-transitory computer readable medium) or composition of matter, and as such, is patent eligible.
Under the 2019 PEG, step 2a-prong 1, Claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception(s), including a method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principle). More particularly, the entirety of the method steps is directed towards assessing rideshare drivers. This is a long-standing commercial practice previously performed by humans (e.g., business operators (such as Uber®, Lyft®, etc.), insurance companies, etc.) manually and via mental steps. Rideshare companies have long monitored their drivers, e.g., for safety considerations. (See, e.g., Safety Transparency Report (2020-2022). Lyft. (2022). https://assets.ctfassets.net/ vz6nkkbc6q75/3yrO0aP4mPfTTvyaUZHJfJ/f77d145864edc540aa9f7fe530c6bcec/Safety_Transparency_Report_2020-2022.pdf). Driver assessments for insurance purposes have long included rideshare determination (i.e., whether or not a prospective driver/insured was actively sharing his/her vehicle). Moreover, Insurance companies have long kept driver profiles/scores during driving trips (see, e.g., Geico Safe Driving Plug-In®). As such, the inventions include an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG, and Alice Corporation. Under step 2a-prong 2, the claims fail to recite a practical application of the exception, because the extraneous limitations (e.g., the structure –computer memory, telematics server, telematics mobile application, TNC platform, cloud-based vehicular telematics system, etc.) merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g), generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and/or generally instruct an artisan to apply it (the method) across generic computing technology. In this case, all of the technology/structure is pre-existing and is recited generically (a specialized machine is not recited nor disclosed in the specification). A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “[I]t is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). More particularly, the claims fail to recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology (under MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the use of a particular machine (under § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article (§ 2106.05(c)), or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (§ 2106.05(e)).
Under part 2b, the additional elements offered by the dependent claims (e.g., an electronic representative, mobile electronic device, computer processor, airport/geographic considerations, detecting a location change exceeding a threshold distance or a connection of the telematics unit to a base station, triggering data collection where detecting location change, etc.) either further delineate the abstract idea, recite insignificant extra-solution activity, or instruct the artisan to apply it (the abstract idea) across generic computing technology. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because no one claim effects an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Under Alice, merely applying or executing the abstract idea on one or more generic computer system (e.g., a computer system comprising a generic database; a generic element (NIC) for providing website access, etc.; a generic element for receiving user input; and a generic display on the computer, in any of their forms) to carry out the abstract idea more efficiently fails to cure patent ineligibility. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (claims reciting a “scanner” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea).
Courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, MPEP 2106.05(d), wherein the italicized tasks are particularly germane to the instant invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0187019 to Fernandes et al., in view of US 2016/0364678 to Cao.
With respect to Claims 1, 11, and 16, Fernandes teaches a vehicular telematics method (FIGS. 2,11,19), a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium (FIGS. 1, 16, 17A,B), and a vehicular telematics system configured to automatically generate rideshare-based risk profiles of rideshare drivers of a transport network company (TNC) platform (Abstract), comprising: one or more processors (FIGS. 1, 18); and a computer memory communicatively coupled to the one or more processors (FIG. 18) and storing instructions (FIG. 1) that when executed cause the one or more processors to: receive, via a computer network, telematics data from one or more sensors (Abstract; FIGS. 16-18); traveling with a rideshare vehicle during an operating segment of the rideshare vehicle ([0084]); receive, via the computer network, rideshare data indicating a rideshare application mode of a rideshare application associated with the rideshare vehicle for each portion of the one or more portions of the operating segment ([0084]), the rideshare application mode indicating whether the rideshare application is active or inactive ([0084], whether owner is driver, borrower is driving, etc.); determine a plurality of operating states of the rideshare vehicle during the operating segment of the rideshare vehicle, including determining a first operating state associated with a first portion of the operating segment and a second operating state associated with a second portion of the operating segment based upon at least a portion of the telematics data ([0084], whether driver/owner/autonomous driving are different states, driver signatures are based on telematics); and generate a rideshare driver score of a driver of the rideshare vehicle based upon the telematics data and the rideshare data associated with at least one of the first operating state or the second operating state ([0047];[0084]).
Fernandes fails to expressly teach, but Cao teaches detect[ing] a location change of a telematics device traveling with a rideshare vehicle, wherein the location change indicates at least one of a movement of the telematics device exceeding a threshold distance or a connection of the telematics device to a base station in a wireless communication network ([0151], teaching the use of geofencing; [0250];[0266]); and receive in response to detecting the location change (traversing the fence), cause the telematics device to collect and transmit, . . . wherein the telematics data includes at least one of acceleration, braking, or speed of the rideshare vehicle at a plurality of times ([0252], the parameters may include vehicle “location”). Cao discusses several advantages offered by its system, including better utilization of a car (wherein usage is discussed with respect to ride-sharing ([0021];[237-38]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fernandes to include an insurance rate based on one of the operating states so as to better utilize the car.
With respect to Claims 2, 12, and 17, Fernandes teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: (a) generate a risk model of a non-rideshare entity that lacks control of a TNC platform based upon at least the telematics data or the rideshare data, the risk model configured to generate the rideshare driver score of the driver ([0084]); or (b) transfer the telematics data to the TNC platform of a rideshare entity, the TNC platform configured to generate a proxy risk model based upon the telematics data or the rideshare data, the proxy risk model configured to generate a proxy rideshare driver score of the driver, and the proxy rideshare driver score corresponding to the rideshare driver score ([0003];[0047];[0076]; FIG. 19).
With respect to Claim 3, Fernandes teaches wherein each of the risk model and the proxy risk model is a machine learning-based model trained with the telematics data or the rideshare data. ([0147])
With respect to Claims 4, 13, and 18, Fernandes teaches wherein each of the risk model and the proxy risk model is configured to determine, from the telematics data or the rideshare data, a driver sub-score of the driver, the driver sub-score comprising any one or more of: a qualitative driving model score of the driver, a quantitative driving model score of the driver, or a credit risk index (CRI) model score of the driver, and wherein the driver sub-score comprises a least a portion of the rideshare driver score of the driver ([0047], “set of scores”).
With respect to Claim 5, Fernandes teaches wherein each of the risk model and the proxy risk model is further configured to generate the rideshare driver score based upon a driver characterization dataset corresponding to the driver, the driver characterization dataset including one or more of: driver tenure, driver rating, driver motor vehicle report (MVR), geography, type of car, number of passengers, passenger ratings, types of trips, weather conditions, or road conditions. ([0047], “characteristics”, rating equal “type”)
With respect to Claims 15, and 20, Fernandes teaches wherein the telematics data comprises geographic position information defining a geographic location of the rideshare vehicle. ([0093])
With respect to Claims 6, 14, and 19, Fernandes fails to expressly teach, but Cao teaches wherein each of the risk model and the proxy risk model is further configured to determine a rideshare per-mile insurance rate ([0037-38];[0261]), the one or more operating states selected from: (a) an airport state indicating that the rideshare vehicle is within a proximity to or within a property of an airport [0016], or (b) a geographic boundary state indicating that the rideshare vehicle is within a proximity to or within a region of a geographic boundary ([0069], region [0269], geographic). Under the same rationale as Claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fernandes to include this limitation taught by Cao.
With respect to Claim 7, Fernandes fails but Cao teaches wherein each of the risk model and the proxy risk model is further configured to adjust an insurance premium based on a first active insurance policy corresponding to the rideshare vehicle and a second active insurance policy corresponding to the rideshare vehicle. [0260-68] Under the same rationale as Claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fernandes to include this limitation.
With respect to Claim 8, Fernandes fails but Cao teaches wherein the first active insurance policy is associated with the TNC [0260-268], and wherein the second active insurance policy is associated with the driver. [0260-268] Under the same rationale as Claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stefan to include this limitation.
With respect to Claim 9, Fernandes fails but Cao teaches wherein the second active insurance policy is adjusted based on the first active insurance policy. [0260-268] Under the same rationale as Claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fernandes to include this limitation.
With respect to Claim 10, Fernandes fails to expressly teach, but Cao teaches wherein the rideshare app mode further includes a sub-group travel mode, and further wherein each of the risk model and the proxy risk model is further configured to determine an alternative insurance premium or an additional insurance premium based on the sub-group travel mode. [0260-268] Under the same rationale as Claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stefan to include this limitation.
Response to remarks
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 6/24/2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive where objections/rejections are maintained. The Terminal Disclaimer submitted therewith has been approved. The amendment overcomes the prior § 102 rejection. A § 112 rejection has been added because the limitation added by the instant amendment is ambiguous. The amendment fails to overcome § 101, because detecting a threshold change in location via gps/telematics units and telematics including acceleration, braking, etc. were known in the art at the time of filing (see, prior art references of record, e.g., Cao). Cases such as Enfish, McRO, are distinguishable from the present case, because they involved technical solutions, whereas here, a business method centered around the timing of collecting telematics data (i.e., during a rideshare trip) is executed across generic computing technology. As per the prior art rejections, Cao has been added to the independent claim rejections to teach the limitations added by the instant amendment. Cao teaches, in contemplation of a rideshare setting, storing driver profile information based on a threshold value of a distance from a location, the driver’s location being a parameter, and accelerometers to obtain telematic data, etc. Thus, based on the totality of its teachings, Cao would teach one of ordinary skill in the art the recited steps in combination with Fernandes. Please note that the applied reference(s) need not use the same terminology, or disclose the limitation verbatim, and also that the entirety of a prior art reference is to be applied to the respective claim(s), such that the pinpoint citations above are exemplary and provided for Applicant’s benefit; other locations within the applied reference(s) may further support the rejection. MPEP 2141.02(VI).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM J JACOB/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights