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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Followings are Applicant’s Arguments and Examiner’s Response:
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 recites "receiving, at a processor, first telematics data generated by a sensor configured at a vehicle and captured during movement of the vehicle," and that such subject matter cannot be performed in the human mind. Applicant further argues that the claimed real-time presentation of the alternate route, receipt of subsequently generated telematics data, determination of the route traveled, and presentation of the product price likewise cannot be performed mentally.
The arguments are acknowledged. Examiner agrees that, as amended, the claimed receipt of sensor-generated telematics data captured during movement of a vehicle, the real-time presentation of the alternate route at an electronic device, and the subsequent receipt and processing of telematics data involve interactions with physical vehicle-related devices that are not reasonably characterized as mere mental observations or calculations. Accordingly, the previous characterization of these limitations under the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas is not maintained in its previous form.
However, withdrawal of the Mental Processes characterization does not, by itself, establish that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. The claims must still be evaluated under the Step 2A framework to determine whether they recite a judicial exception and, if so, whether the exception is integrated into a practical application.
As amended, claims 1, 8, and 15 continue to recite determining a current vehicle route having a first risk, determining an alternate route having a lower second risk, determining which route the vehicle traveled, determining a product price based on the route traveled, and presenting the resulting route and product price. Considered as a whole, these limitations continue to recite an abstract concept involving the evaluation and comparison of route information and the determination of a product price based on the resulting route selection or travel behavior. The recitation of telematics data and vehicle-related devices does not, by itself, remove these underlying determinations from the judicial-exception analysis.
Applicant further argues that the amended limitations distinguish the claims from the prior rejection because the claimed operations cannot be performed mentally. As discussed above, Examiner agrees that the amended claim language more specifically ties the information processing to sensor-generated telematics data obtained during vehicle movement and to interaction with an electronic device associated with the vehicle.
Nevertheless, the mere use of a sensor, processor, electronic device, or telematics data does not necessarily integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. The relevant inquiry is whether the additional elements, individually or in combination, apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the exception.
Here, the claims recite receiving sensor-generated telematics data, processing that data to determine a current route and a lower-risk alternate route, causing presentation of the alternate route in real time, receiving subsequent telematics data, determining which route was traveled, and causing presentation of a product price. The claims, however, do not recite a particular technological mechanism by which the sensor data is acquired, a particular telematics architecture, a particular data-processing technique, a particular navigation technique that improves operation of a navigation system, or a particular control of the vehicle or another machine resulting from the route determination.
Rather, the claimed sensor and electronic device are utilized to obtain information and present the results of the claimed route and pricing determinations. The claimed "real-time" presentation specifies when the information is presented, but does not, by itself, recite a particular technological improvement in how the electronic device, navigation system, telematics system, or vehicle operates.
Likewise, specifying that the telematics data is "generated by a sensor configured at a vehicle and captured during movement of the vehicle" more particularly identifies the source and circumstances of the data. It does not, standing alone, recite an improvement to the operation of the sensor, telematics system, vehicle navigation system, processor, or electronic device.
Accordingly, Applicant's amendment is recognized as narrowing the claim to a more particular vehicle-telematics context, but the amendment does not, on the present claim language, establish that the abstract concept is integrated into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the claimed processing cannot encompass a user merely observing or recording information because the amended claims require data generated by a sensor configured at the vehicle.
This argument is persuasive to the extent that it addresses the prior Mental Processes rationale. The Office therefore does not rely upon the previous statement that the amended sensor-data limitations themselves may be performed in the human mind.
However, identifying the electronic device, mobile device, or telematics device from which or through which data is obtained does not necessarily supply the requisite practical application. The eligibility inquiry is directed to what the claimed technological elements actually accomplish, rather than merely the identity of the device involved.
Claims 4-7 further specify particular devices and sensors, including a mobile device disposed at the vehicle, a telematics device mounted on the vehicle, and particular vehicle sensors such as an accelerometer, gyroscope, compass, odometer, speedometer, tachometer, and ignition sensor. These limitations provide additional technological context. Nevertheless, the claims continue to use the resulting sensor information principally to perform the claimed route-risk comparison and product-pricing determination. The claims do not recite a particular improvement in the operation of those sensors or in the operation of the vehicle, telematics system, or navigation technology resulting from their use.
Applicant states that the amendments were made to expedite allowance and submits that the amendments render the §101 rejection moot.
Examiner does not agree that the rejection is rendered moot merely because the claims now include additional limitations directed to sensor-generated telematics data, vehicle movement, electronic-device presentation, and particular vehicle-related devices and sensors. The amended claims remain subject to examination under 35 U.S.C. §101, and the eligibility of the amended claims must be determined based on the claims as presently pending.
The Office has reconsidered the previous rejection in view of the amendments and Applicant's arguments. As explained above, the previous Mental Processes rationale is not maintained in its original form. Nevertheless, the amendments do not establish, on their face, that the claimed abstract concept is integrated into a practical application.
Applicant's arguments have therefore been considered and are persuasive in part.
In particular, the Office agrees that the amended recitations directed to sensor-generated telematics data captured during vehicle movement and the specified interaction with an electronic device provide limitations that should not be characterized merely as mental processes under their broadest reasonable interpretation.
However, these amendments do not, by themselves, establish an integration of the recited abstract concept into a practical application. The claims continue to recite the use of vehicle-related data and generic processing operations to determine a lower-risk route and determine and present a product price, without reciting a particular technological improvement to the vehicle, navigation system, telematics architecture, sensor operation, data-processing technique, or other technology.
Accordingly, the §101 rejection is modified from the rationale set forth in the previous Office action, but is maintained on the revised basis set forth above.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1, 8, and 15, the claim(s) recite(s) a process of evaluating vehicle route information and associated risk, selecting or determining an alternate lower-risk route, determining which route was traveled, and determining a product price based on the route traveled, with the resulting route and product price being presented through an electronic device. The recited product-pricing determination is a commercial practice and thus falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas. To the extent the claimed determinations involve evaluating and comparing information, those determinations also involve information analysis that does not, merely by being performed with telematics data, remove the claim from the judicial-exception analysis.
The amended claims further recite receiving first and second telematics data generated by a sensor configured at a vehicle and captured during movement of the vehicle, and causing an electronic device associated with the vehicle to present the alternate route and product price.
The Office recognizes that these amended limitations more particularly tie the claimed information processing to physical vehicle-related sensors and an electronic device. Accordingly, the previous characterization of the amended sensor-data limitations as processes that could themselves be performed in the human mind is not relied upon.
Nevertheless, the claimed route-risk evaluation and product-price determination remain directed to the above-described abstract commercial concept.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, merely apply the route-risk and pricing concept in the technological environment of vehicle telematics. The claims recite receiving sensor-generated telematics data during vehicle movement, processing that data to determine a current route and a lower-risk alternate route, causing the alternate route to be presented in real time, receiving subsequent telematics data, determining the route actually traveled, and causing a product price to be presented.
The claims, however, do not recite a particular technological mechanism for acquiring the sensor data, a particular telematics architecture, a particular technique for processing the sensor data, a particular improvement to vehicle navigation technology, or a particular control operation performed on the vehicle based on the route determination. Nor do claims 1, 8, or 15 recite that the claimed processing improves the operation of the processor, sensor, electronic device, telematics system, navigation system, or vehicle.
The limitation requiring that the telematics data be "generated by a sensor configured at a vehicle and captured during movement of the vehicle" identifies the source and circumstances of the information being processed, but does not, by itself, recite an improvement to the operation of the sensor or vehicle-telematics technology. Similarly, causing an electronic device to present the alternate route "in real-time" and subsequently present the product price specifies the timing and output of the information, but does not recite a particular technological improvement in the operation of the electronic device or navigation system.
Thus, the additional elements amount to applying the abstract concept to the particular technological environment of vehicle telematics rather than integrating the exception into a practical application. It recognizes that merely linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, without a meaningful additional limitation, is insufficient for integration into a practical application.
The claim(s) do/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the claims, considered both individually and in combination, do not recite an inventive concept beyond the claimed abstract route-evaluation and product-pricing concept.
In particular, the additional elements include the vehicle sensor, processor, electronic device, receipt of sensor-generated telematics data, presentation of the alternate route, receipt of subsequent telematics data, determination of the route traveled, and presentation of the product price. These elements provide the technological context in which the claimed determinations are performed, but the claims do not recite a specific non-generic arrangement or operation of these components that produces a technological improvement.
The additional limitations therefore do not amount to significantly more merely because the claimed information is obtained from vehicle sensors, processed by a processor, and presented through an electronic device. It requires the additional elements to be considered both individually and in combination; the fact that individual elements may be conventional is not, by itself, sufficient, but the claims here do not identify a particular unconventional technological arrangement that supplies an inventive concept.
Further, the claim language does not transform a particular physical article into a different state or thing, nor does it recite a particular machine configuration that performs the claimed route and pricing determinations in a manner that improves the functioning of that machine or another technology. The claimed vehicle, sensor, processor, and electronic device are instead used to obtain, process, and communicate information.
Accordingly, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims therefore remain directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, they are also rejected based on their dependency from rejected claims 1, 8, and 15.
As discussed below, although the amended claims recite additional vehicle, sensor, telematics, and electronic-device limitations, the claims continue to recite an abstract concept of determining a route based on risk and determining a product price based on the route traveled. The additional limitations, considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the recited abstract concept into a practical application and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 2A — Prong One
As recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15, the claims recite operations including:
receiving telematics data generated by a vehicle sensor and captured during movement of the vehicle;
determining a current route to a destination, the current route having a first risk;
determining an alternate route having a lower second risk;
presenting the alternate route at an electronic device associated with the vehicle;
receiving subsequent telematics data generated by the sensor and captured during movement of the vehicle;
determining which of the current route or alternate route the vehicle traveled;
determining a product price based on the route traveled; and
presenting the product price at the electronic device.
The limitations concerning determining a product price based on which route was traveled recite a commercial or economic practice involving pricing of a product based on the activity of a vehicle. Such activity falls within the abstract-idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions and management of commercial activity.
In addition, the route-related portions of the claims recite evaluating information concerning alternative routes and associated risks and determining which route was traveled. To the extent these determinations can be characterized as observation, evaluation, comparison, and analysis of information, they recite concepts that fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
The claims therefore recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
The amended recitation of sensor-generated telematics data does not, by itself, remove the underlying abstract concept from the claim. Rather, the sensor-generated telematics data provides information used in performing the route/risk determination and subsequent pricing determination.
Step 2A — Prong Two
The next inquiry is whether the claims as a whole integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 include, among other things:
a sensor configured at a vehicle;
telematics data generated by the sensor and captured during vehicle movement;
a processor;
an electronic device associated with the vehicle;
receiving subsequent sensor-generated telematics data;
presenting the alternate route in real-time; and
presenting the product price at the electronic device.
These additional elements are considered both individually and in combination.
Sensor-generated telematics data
The limitation requiring the first and second telematics data to be generated by a sensor configured at the vehicle and captured during movement of the vehicle imposes a vehicle-related data acquisition context on the claimed abstract concept.
However, the claim does not recite a particular improvement in the operation of the sensor itself, a particular sensor architecture, a new manner of acquiring the telematics data, or a particular technological mechanism by which the sensor generates or captures the data.
The sensor therefore functions as a source of information used by the claimed route and pricing determinations.
Processor
The processor is recited at a high level of generality and is used to receive data, determine routes and risks, determine which route was traveled, determine a product price, and cause information to be presented.
The claim does not recite a particular processor architecture or a particular improvement to processor functionality.
Electronic device and real-time presentation
The limitation requiring the processor to cause an electronic device associated with the vehicle to present the alternate route in real-time provides a concrete output of the route determination.
However, the claim does not recite a particular improvement to the electronic device, a particular display architecture, or a particular technological mechanism for achieving real-time presentation.
Likewise, causing the product price to be presented at the electronic device merely communicates the result of the pricing determination.
Combination of additional elements
The additional elements are also considered in their ordered combination.
The claimed sequence is generally:
sensor-generated vehicle data → route/risk determination → lower-risk alternate route → real-time presentation → subsequent sensor-generated vehicle data → determination of route traveled → product-price determination → presentation of product price.
Although this sequence places the abstract route/risk and pricing concepts in the context of vehicle telematics, the claim does not recite a specific technological improvement to vehicle navigation, telematics processing, sensor operation, electronic-device operation, or vehicle control.
Rather, the vehicle sensor and electronic device provide the technological environment in which the route-selection and pricing concepts are performed.
Accordingly, the claimed additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not impose a meaningful limitation that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
The fact that the claims involve physical vehicle sensors and an electronic device does not, standing alone, establish integration into a practical application. The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed combination applies the abstract idea in a manner that meaningfully limits the claim, rather than merely implementing the abstract idea using technology.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to the recited abstract idea under Step 2A.
Step 2B — Significantly More
Because claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, the claims are next evaluated to determine whether the additional elements, individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements include the vehicle sensor, processor, electronic device, sensor-generated telematics data, receipt of subsequent telematics data, real-time presentation of the alternate route, and presentation of the product price.
These elements, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
The claims do not recite a particular technological improvement in:
vehicle sensors;
acquisition of telematics data;
processing of telematics data;
route-calculation technology;
navigation technology;
electronic-device operation;
telematics communication; or
vehicle control.
Instead, the claimed components perform their stated functions of collecting vehicle information, processing the information to determine routes and risks, presenting route information, determining a price, and presenting the price.
The additional elements therefore amount to implementing the abstract route-selection and pricing concepts using vehicle sensors, processors, and an electronic device.
Ordered combination
The ordered combination likewise does not provide significantly more.
The sequence of receiving sensor data, determining routes, presenting a route, receiving additional sensor data, determining the route traveled, determining a product price, and presenting the price represents an ordered implementation of the same route-selection and pricing concepts.
The combination does not recite a particular technological mechanism that changes the operation of the vehicle, sensor, processor, navigation system, telematics system, or electronic device.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and therefore include all limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 3 further determine product prices based on the alternate and current routes.
These limitations further specify the pricing aspect of the abstract concept but do not provide a technological improvement to the vehicle, sensor, telematics system, processor, or electronic device.
Claim 4 specifies that the electronic device is a mobile device disposed at the vehicle.
Claim 5 specifies that the sensor is configured at the electronic device and that the electronic device is a mobile device located at the vehicle or a telematics device mounted on the vehicle.
Claim 6 specifies particular types of vehicle-motion data, including acceleration, turning, speed, cornering, braking, and deceleration data.
Claim 7 specifies particular vehicle sensors, including an ignition sensor, odometer, speedometer, tachometer, accelerometer, gyroscope, or compass.
These additional limitations further specify the source or type of information used in the claimed route determination. However, they do not recite a particular improvement in sensor operation, telematics processing, vehicle navigation, or vehicle control.
Accordingly, claims 2-7 remain directed to the same abstract idea and do not recite significantly more.
Claims 9-14 depend from claim 8.
Claims 9 and 10 further specify product prices associated with the current and alternate routes.
Claims 11 and 12 further specify road segments, risk thresholds, accidents, construction, traffic conditions, and road conditions.
Claims 13 and 14 further specify environmental condition data and transmission of the product price to a vehicle computer or mobile device.
These limitations further particularize the information used to evaluate route risk and communicate the resulting information but do not recite a particular technological improvement to the vehicle-telematics or navigation technology.
Accordingly, claims 9-14 remain directed to the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more.
Claims 16-20 depend from claim 15.
Claims 16 and 17 further specify environmental, weather, road, and traffic condition data.
Claim 18 further specifies determining product prices based on the current and alternate routes.
Claim 19 specifies determining the alternate route based on fuel requirements.
Claim 20 specifies determining the alternate route based on route-condition data received from third-party systems.
These limitations further particularize the information considered in selecting a route or determining a price, but do not recite a particular technological improvement to the sensor, telematics system, navigation system, processor, or vehicle.
Accordingly, claims 16-20 remain directed to the abstract idea and do not provide significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Prior art made of record fails to teach,
As per claim 1,
A computer-implemented method for vehicle route determination, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, at a processor, first telematics data indicating a destination of a vehicle; determining, at the processor, based on the first telematics data, a current route of the vehicle to the destination, wherein the current route is characterized by a first risk; determining, at the processor, based on the first telematics data, an alternate route from a current location of the vehicle to the destination, wherein the alternate route is characterized by a second risk less than the first risk; transmitting, from the processor, a first indication of the alternate route; receiving, at the processor, second telematics data associated with the vehicle; determining, at the processor, based on the second telematics data, that the vehicle traveled along one of the current route or the alternate route; determining, at the processor, based on determining that the vehicle traveled along one of the current route or the alternate route, a product price; and transmitting, from the processor, a second indication of the product price.
As per claim 8,
A computer system for vehicle route determination, the computer system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory memories coupled to the one or more processors and storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to perform operations comprising: receiving first telematics data indicating a destination of a vehicle; determining, based on the first telematics data, a current route of the vehicle to the destination, wherein the current route is characterized by a first risk; determining, based on the first telematics data, an alternate route from a current location of the vehicle to the destination, wherein the alternate route is characterized by a second risk less than the first risk; transmitting the alternate route; receiving second telematics data associated with the vehicle; determining, based on the second telematics data, that the vehicle traveled along one of the current route or the alternate route; determining, based on determining that the vehicle traveled along one of the current route or the alternate route, a product price; and transmitting the product price.
As per claim 15,
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions for vehicle route determination that, when executed by at least one processor of a computer system, cause the computer system to perform operations comprising: receiving first telematics data indicating a destination of a vehicle; determining, based on the first telematics data, a current route of the vehicle to the destination, wherein the current route is characterized by a first risk; determining, based on the first telematics data, an alternate route from a current location of the vehicle to the destination, wherein the alternate route is characterized by a second risk less than the first risk; transmitting the alternate route; receiving second telematics data associated with the vehicle; determining, based on the second telematics data, that the vehicle traveled along one of the current route or the alternate route; determining, based on determining that the vehicle traveled along one of the current route or the alternate route, a product price; and transmitting the product price.
The examiner found no suggestions or motivations to combine similar teachings from prior art made of record to overcome the limitations as discussed above individually and in combination in respect the claimed invention as a whole.
The Prior Art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hayward (US 9,679,487) shows geographic location data and telematics data may be collected in real-time by a mobile device within a vehicle, or the vehicle itself. The telematics data may indicate vehicle direction, speed, motion, etc., as well as traffic hazards in the surrounding environment. A remote server may receive the location and telematics data from two vehicles. If an anomalous or hazardous condition exists in the vicinity of the first vehicle, a geographic relationship with the second vehicle is determined, and if within a predetermined distance, an alert or alternate route for the second vehicle is determined and transmitted to the second vehicle. As a result, a negative impact or risk of collision caused by the anomalous condition on the second vehicle is alleviated. The amount of the insured's usage of the telematics data-based risk mitigation or prevision functionality may be used to calculate or adjust insurance premiums, rates, or discounts.
Bogovich et al. (US 8,606,512) shows a method is disclosed for mitigating the risks associated with driving by assigning risk values to road segments and using those risk values to select less risky travel routes. Various approaches to helping users mitigate risk are presented. A computing device is configured to generate a database of risk values. That device may receive accident information, geographic information, vehicle information, and other information from one or more data sources and calculate a risk value for the associated road segment. Subsequently, the computing device may provide the associated risk value to other devices. Furthermore, a personal navigation device may receive travel route information and use that information to retrieve risk values for the road segments in the travel route. An insurance company may use this information to determine whether to adjust a quote or premium of an insurance policy. This and other aspects relating to using geographically encoded information to promote and reward risk mitigation are disclosed.
Schumann et al. (US 2012/0123806) shows pursuant to some embodiments, insurance systems, methods and devices are provided which include a data storage device for storing, updating and providing access to loss risk score data. In some embodiments, a request for information associated with a user's location identified by user location data may be received over a communications network. A computer processing system may then be operated to generate a safety score associated with said use location data, the safety score being based on a plurality of loss risk factors associated with the user location data. A response, including the safety score, may then be transmitted to the user over the communications network.
Peak et al. (US 8,606,512) shows pursuant to some embodiments, insurance systems, methods and devices are provided which include a data storage device for storing, updating and providing access to loss risk score data, a computer processor for executing program instructions and for retrieving the loss risk score data from the data storage device, a memory, coupled to the computer processor, for storing program instructions for execution by the computer processor, a geocoding engine comprising program instructions stored in the memory for geocoding historical loss data and a plurality of loss risk factors, a scoring engine comprising program instructions stored in the memory for calculating a loss risk score for each of a plurality of geographical locations based on said historical loss data and said plurality of loss risk factors, and a communication device, coupled to the computer processor, to output loss risk score data based on geographical location.
However, the Prior Art of references individually or in combination not explicitly mention the specific structure arrangement as recited in the claims 1, 8, 15, respectively, including:
As per claim 1,
A computer-implemented method for vehicle route determination, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, at a processor, first telematics data indicating a destination of a vehicle; determining, at the processor, based on the first telematics data, a current route of the vehicle to the destination, wherein the current route is characterized by a first risk; determining, at the processor, based on the first telematics data, an alternate route from a current location of the vehicle to the destination, wherein the alternate route is characterized by a second risk less than the first risk; transmitting, from the processor, a first indication of the alternate route; receiving, at the processor, second telematics data associated with the vehicle; determining, at the processor, based on the second telematics data, that the vehicle traveled along one of the current route or the alternate route; determining, at the processor, based on determining that the vehicle traveled along one of the current route or the alternate route, a product price; and transmitting, from the processor, a second indication of the product price.
As per claim 8,
A computer system for vehicle route determination, the computer system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory memories coupled to the one or more processors and storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to perform operations comprising: receiving first telematics data indicating a destination of a vehicle; determining, based on the first telematics data, a current route of the vehicle to the destination, wherein the current route is characterized by a first risk; determining, based on the first telematics data, an alternate route from a current location of the vehicle to the destination, wherein the alternate route is characterized by a second risk less than the first risk; transmitting the alternate route; receiving second telematics data associated with the vehicle; determining, based on the second telematics data, that the vehicle traveled along one of the current route or the alternate route; determining, based on determining that the vehicle traveled along one of the current route or the alternate route, a product price; and transmitting the product price.
As per claim 15,
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions for vehicle route determination that, when executed by at least one processor of a computer system, cause the computer system to perform operations comprising: receiving first telematics data indicating a destination of a vehicle; determining, based on the first telematics data, a current route of the vehicle to the destination, wherein the current route is characterized by a first risk; determining, based on the first telematics data, an alternate route from a current location of the vehicle to the destination, wherein the alternate route is characterized by a second risk less than the first risk; transmitting the alternate route; receiving second telematics data associated with the vehicle; determining, based on the second telematics data, that the vehicle traveled along one of the current route or the alternate route; determining, based on determining that the vehicle traveled along one of the current route or the alternate route, a product price; and transmitting the product price.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. 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.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights