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 are allowed.
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) steps for and similar language: receiving telematics data indicating a destination of a vehicle, determining a current route to the destination with an associated risk, determining an alternate route with a lower risk, transmitting indications of the alternate route, receiving second telematics data, determining which route the vehicle traveled, determining a product price based on the traveled route, and transmitting the product price.
The limitation of receiving telematics data indicating a destination of a vehicle, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
For example, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses a user observing or recording information indicating a destination of a vehicle.
Similarly, the limitation of determining a current route of the vehicle to the destination, wherein the current route is characterized by a first risk, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user planning or identifying a route to the destination and estimating the associated risk.
Similarly, the limitation of determining 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, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
For example, “determining” in this context encompasses the user manually identifying an alternate route with a lower risk.
Similarly, the limitations of transmitting indications of the alternate route, receiving second telematics data, determining which route the vehicle traveled, determining a product price based on the traveled route, and transmitting the product price, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
For example, these steps encompass a user recognizing and communicating the alternate route, observing which route the vehicle traveled, calculating a product price, and communicating the price information.
These steps amount to collecting information, analyzing the information, and displaying or transmitting results, which constitutes an abstract idea.
The abstract idea is further characterized as risk-based pricing of a product based on vehicle routing decisions, which is a method of organizing human activity, specifically a commercial practice relating to insurance or product pricing decisions.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim only recites additional elements of using a processor or memory to perform the steps, all at a high level of generality (i.e., generic computer functions of receiving, transmitting, determining, and calculating), which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer components to perform receiving, determining, transmitting, and calculating steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible
As per claims 2,7, 9-14, 16-20, they are also rejected based on the dependency of claims 1, 8 and 15.
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
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