DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application filed on 11/01/2024 and the Amendment & Remark filed on 04/17/2026.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 8-14 are canceled.
Claims 21-24 are added.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 15, 16 and 19 are amended.
Claims 1-7 and 15-24 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “update, based on the request for the subscription service, at least one of a software system or a hardware system of the SDV via an OTA update to cause activation of at least one feature-on-demand (FOD) service of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV and modification of functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV”. However, the Original Disclosure does not support updating a hardware system of the SDV via an OTA update to cause activation of FOD service.
Claim 15 recites “updating, based on the request for the subscription service, at least one of a software system or a hardware system of the SDV via an OTA update to cause activation of at least one feature-on-demand (FOD) service of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV and modification of functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV”. However, the Original Disclosure does not support updating a hardware system of the SDV via an OTA update to cause activation of FOD service.
Claim 23 recites “update, based on the request for the subscription service, at least one of a software system or a hardware system of the SDV via an OTA update;
activate at least one feature-on-demand (FOD) service of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV and modify functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV”. However, the Original Disclosure does not support updating a hardware system of the SDV via an OTA update to cause activation of FOD service.
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 1-7 and 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the claims as a whole are to a plurality of apparatus and a process, which falls within one or more statutory categories. (Step 1: YES) The recitation of the claimed invention is then further analyzed as follow, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced.
Claim 1 recites:
A first server comprising:
a transceiver configured to establish a communication session with a plurality of software-defined vehicles (SDVs) for over-the-air (OTA) updates via wireless communication, wherein the SDVs are capable of updating software of vehicle device parts of the SDVs via OTA updates;
memory configured to store at least one instruction; and one or more processors configured to execute the at least one instruction stored in the memory to:
receive, from a user device associated with an SDV of the SDVs, a request for a subscription service associated with at least one vehicle device part of the SDV;
update, based on the request for the subscription service, at least one of a software system or a hardware system of the SDV via an OTA update to cause activation of at least one feature-on-demand (FOD) service of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV and modification of functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV;
based on the update of the at least one of the software system or the hardware system of the SDV, automatically, send, to a second server, attribute information of the SDV, wherein the attribute information indicates that a service of at least one vehicle device part of the SDV wherein the at least one FOD service comprises the subscription service that modifies functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV, and wherein the modified functionality of the at least one vehicle device part is associated with at least one of a modified accident risk value or a modified user convenience value of the SDV;
receive, from the second server, a first assessment estimate that is determined based on at least one of the modified accident risk value or the modified user convenience value;
receive, from a user device, an indication of approval of the first assessment estimate; and
send, to the second server, information about the indication of approval of the first assessment estimate.
Claim 15 recites:
A method comprising:
receiving, by an apparatus from a user device associated with a software-defined vehicle (SDV) of a plurality of SDVs, a request for a subscription service associated with at least one vehicle device part of the SDV;
establishing, via a transceiver of the apparatus, a communication session with the SDV for over-the-air (OTA) update via wireless communication, wherein the SDVs are capable of updating software of vehicle device parts of the SDVs via OTA updates;
updating, based on the request for the subscription service, at least one of a software system or a hardware system of the SDV via an OTA update to cause activation of at least one feature-on-demand (FOD) service of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV and modification of functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV;
based on the update of the at least one of the software system or the hardware system of the SDV, automatically, send, to a second server, attribute information of the SDV, wherein the attribute information indicates that a service of at least one vehicle device part of the SDV wherein the at least one FOD service comprises the subscription service that modifies functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV, and wherein the modified functionality of the at least one vehicle device part is associated with at least one of a modified accident risk value or a modified user convenience value of the SDV;
receiving, from the second server, a first assessment estimate that is determined based on at least one of the modified accident risk value or the modified user convenience value;
receiving, from the user device, an indication of approval of the first assessment estimate; and
sending, to the second server, information about the indication of approval of the first assessment estimate.
Claims 2 and 16 recite:
receive, from the user device, a request for a second service of at least one second device part of the SDV, wherein the second service is associated with at least one of a second accident risk value or a second user convenience value of the SDV; and receive, based on the request, a second assessment estimate that is determined based on at least one of the second accident risk value or the second convenience value.
Claims 3 and 17 recite:
send, to the user device, the second assessment estimate; receive, from the user device, an indication of approval of the second assessment estimate; and send, to the second server, information about the indication of approval of the second assessment estimate.
Claims 4 and 18 recite:
wherein the second server comprises a plurality of second servers, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive, from the plurality of second servers, a plurality of assessment estimates, and wherein the second assessment estimate is different from at least one of the plurality of assessment estimates.
Claims 5 and 19 recite:
receive, from the user device, an indication of termination of the service for the SDV; and receive, from the second server, a second assessment estimate that reflects the termination of the service.
Claims 6 and 20 recite:
send, to the user device, the second assessment estimate; receive, from the user device, an indication of approval of the second assessment estimate; and send, to the second server, information about the indication of approval of the second assessment estimate.
Claim 7 recites:
wherein the second server comprises a plurality of second servers, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive, from the plurality of second servers, a plurality of assessment estimates, and wherein the second assessment estimate that reflects the termination of the service is different from at least one of the plurality of assessment estimates.
wherein the second server comprises a plurality of second servers, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine, for each of the plurality of second servers, a different one of a plurality of assessment estimates, and wherein the second assessment estimate that reflects the termination of the service is different from at least one of the plurality of assessment estimates.
Claims 21, 22 and 24 recite:
wherein the modified functionality of the at least one vehicle device part comprises at least one of an autonomous driving system functionality, a remote parking assistance system functionality, or a lane keeping assistance system functionality, and wherein the modified accident risk value indicates a safety rating of the SDV based on the subscription service.
Claim 23 recites:
A software-defined vehicle (SDV) comprising: a transceiver configured to establish a communication session with at least one external device for over-the-air (OTA) update via wireless communication, wherein the SDV is capable of updating software of vehicle device parts of the SDV via OTA update;
memory configured to store at least one instruction; and
one or more processors configured to execute the at least one instruction stored in the memory to:
transmit a request for a subscription service associated with at least one vehicle device part of the SDV;
update, based on the request for the subscription service, at least one of a software system or a hardware system of the SDV via an OTA update;
activate at least one feature-on-demand (FOD) service of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV and modify functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV;
based on the update of the at least one of the software system or the hardware system of the SDV, cause automatic transmission, to at least one server, of attribute information of the SDV, wherein the attribute information indicates the at least one FOD service of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV, wherein the at least one FOD service comprises the subscription service that modifies functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV, and wherein the modified functionality of the at least one vehicle device part is associated with at least one of a modified accident risk value or a modified user convenience value of the SDV; and
receive, from the at least one server, a first assessment estimate that is determined based on at least one of the modified accident risk value or the modified user convenience value.
Based on the limitations above, the claims describe a process that covers responding to subscription request of vehicle features and providing risk assessment estimate of the vehicle based on the subscribed features. The Specification paragraph 0051-0051 and 0054 indicate that “mobility device is a vehicle that is a ground moving body that runs on the ground …”, “The SDV business model refers to a business model in which functions and services implemented in a mobility device are provided in the form of software, and a customer may set up the mobility device by determining whether to subscribe to such functions and services” and “An assessment may be an insurance, and an assessment estimate may be an insurance quote.” Both responding to service subscription request and providing insurance quote for vehicle are considered to be a commercial interaction, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the claim(s) recite(s) a Judicial Exception. (Step 2A prong one: Yes)
This analysis then evaluates whether the claims as a whole integrates the recited Judicial Exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element(s) of “server” and “processor” as a mere tool to perform the steps of the Judicial Exception, which encompasses no more than Mere Instruction to Apply.
For example, the limitation “a transceiver configured to establish a communication session with a plurality of software-defined vehicles (SDVs) for over-the-air (OTA) updates via wireless communication, wherein the SDVs are capable of updating software of vehicle device parts of the SDVs via OTA updates” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more server to apply the Judicial Exception step of establishing communication session with a plurality of vehicles;
the limitation “receive, from a user device associated with an SDV of the SDVs, a request for a subscription service associated with at least one vehicle device part of the SDV” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more server to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving a request for a subscription service associated with the vehicle;
the limitation “update, based on the request for the subscription service, at least one of a software system or a hardware system of the SDV via an OTA update to cause activation of at least one feature-on-demand (FOD) service of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV and modification of functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more server to apply the Judicial Exception step of updating the vehicle software system and activating at least one of the service based on the request for the subscription service;
the limitation “based on the update of the at least one of the software system or the hardware system of the SDV, automatically, send, to a second server, attribute information of the SDV, wherein the attribute information indicates that a service of at least one vehicle device part of the SDV wherein the at least one FOD service comprises the subscription service that modifies functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV, and wherein the modified functionality of the at least one vehicle device part is associated with at least one of a modified accident risk value or a modified user convenience value of the SDV” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more server to apply the Judicial Exception step of sending, based on the activation of the request service, attribute information of the vehicle to an assessment manager;
the limitation “receive, from the second server, a first assessment estimate that is determined based on at least one of the modified accident risk value or the modified user convenience value” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more server to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving the assessment estimate.
the limitation “receive, from a user device, an indication of approval of the first assessment estimate” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more server to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving the indication of approval of the first assessment estimate from the user;
the limitation “send, to the second server, information about the indication of approval of the first assessment estimate” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more server to apply the Judicial Exception step of sending information about the indication of approval of the first assessment estimate to the assessment manager;
the limitation “send, to the first server, information about the indication of approval of the first assessment estimate” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more server to apply the Judicial Exception step of sending information about the indication of approval to the facilitator;
the limitation “receive, from the user device, a request for a second service of at least one second device part of the SDV, wherein the second service is associated with at least one of a second accident risk value or a second user convenience value of the SDV; and receive, based on the request, a second assessment estimate that is determined based on at least one of the second accident risk value or the second convenience value” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more server to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving the request for a second service from the user, receiving a second assessment estimate (second insurance quote);
the limitation “receive, from the user device, a request for a second service of at least one second device part of the SDV, wherein the second service is associated with at least one of a second accident risk value or a second user convenience value of the SDV; and receive, based on the request, a second assessment estimate that is determined based on at least one of the second accident risk value or the second convenience value” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more server to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving the indication of a second service from a facilitator and sending a second assessment estimate (second insurance quote) to the user;
the limitation “send, to the user device, the second assessment estimate; receive, from the user device, an indication of approval of the second assessment estimate; and send, to the second server, information about the indication of approval of the second assessment estimate” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more server to apply the Judicial Exception step of sending a second assessment estimate (second insurance quote) to the user, receiving an indication of approval from the user, and sending information about the indication of approval to the assessment manager;
the limitation “wherein the second server comprises a plurality of second servers, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive, from the plurality of second servers, a plurality of assessment estimates, and wherein the second assessment estimate is different from at least one of the plurality of assessment estimates” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more server to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving a plurality of different second assessment estimates from a plurality of assessment manager;
the limitation “receive, from the user device, an indication of termination of the service for the mobility device; and receive, from the second server, a second assessment estimate that reflects the termination of the service” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more server to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving an indication of termination of the service (insurance) from the user and receiving a second assessment estimate (insurance quote) from the assessment manager;
the limitation “send, to the user device, the second assessment estimate; receive, from the user device, an indication of approval of the second assessment estimate; and send, to the second server, information about the indication of approval of the second assessment estimate” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more server to apply the Judicial Exception step of sending a second assessment estimate (insurance quote) to the user, receiving the indication of approval of the second assessment estimate, and sending to the assessment manager the information;
the limitation “wherein the second server comprises a plurality of second servers, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive, from the plurality of second servers, a plurality of assessment estimates, and wherein the second assessment estimate that reflects the termination of the service is different from at least one of the plurality of assessment estimates” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more server to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving a plurality of different second assessment estimates from a plurality of assessment manager;
the limitation “send, to the second server, information about the indication of approval of the first assessment estimate” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of sending information about the indication of approval of the first assessment estimate to the assessment manager;
the limitation “transmit a request for a subscription service associated with at least one vehicle device part of the SDV” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of sending a request for a subscription service associated with vehicle device part of the a vehicle;
the limitation “update, based on the request for the subscription service, at least one of a software system or a hardware system of the SDV via an OTA update; activate at least one feature-on-demand (FOD) service of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV and modify functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of updating the vehicle software system and activating at least one of the service based on the request for the subscription service;
the limitation “wherein the modified functionality of the at least one vehicle device part comprises at least one of an autonomous driving system functionality, a remote parking assistance system functionality, or a lane keeping assistance system functionality, and wherein the modified accident risk value indicates a safety rating of the SDV based on the subscription service” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of activating at least one of the service based on the request for the subscription service;
Other than being generally linked to the steps of the Judicial Exception, the additional elements in the above step(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality, without technological detail of how the particular steps are performed technologically.
The additional element(s) of “memory” and/or “non-transitory storage medium” are generically recited to store data and/or instructions of the Judicial Exception.
The additional element(s) of “from / to … the server” are generically recited to perform communication steps such as receiving and transmitting.
The additional element(s) of “software-defined vehicle”, “vehicle device part of the SDV” and “update … a software system or a hardware system of the SDV” are generically recited as the subjects of requested service subscription and the subject associated with assessment estimate, such as a vehicle being insured. There is no technological details regarding the operation and update of the SDV or the software system or hardware system of the SDV
The additional element(s) of “autonomous driving system”, “remote parking assistance system”, “a lane keeping assistance system” are generically recited as the services or features to be subscribed to without technological details of these systems.
The examiner further noted generic computer affixes such as “first server” and “second server(s)” are invoked in place of a facilitator and one or more assessment manager coordinating communications of the insurance quoting process, but found that to be mere instructions to implement the Judicial Exception idea on a computer.
Indeed, the instant claims (1) attempted to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result; (2) used of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply added a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the Judicial Exception and (3) generally applied the Judicial Exception to a generic computing environment without limitation indicative of practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)I). Thus, the claims are no more than Mere Instruction to Apply the Judicial Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), which do not integrate the cited Judicial Exception into practical application (Step 2A prong two: No) The claims are directed to a Judicial Exception.
The claim does 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 element of using one or more processors to facilitate insurance quoting to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The recited ordered combination of additional elements includes one or more servers invoked in place of parties of the insurance quoting. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. No additional element currently recited in the claims amount the claims to be significantly more than the cited abstract idea. (Step 2B: No)
Therefore, claims 1-7 and 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 15-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy et al (US 10185999) in view of LUVÖ (US 2023/0110969).
As per claim 1, Konrardy teaches an apparatus comprising:
a transceiver configured to establish a communication session with a plurality of software-defined vehicles (SDVs) for over-the-air (OTA) updates via wireless communication, wherein the SDVs are capable of updating software of vehicle device parts of the SDVs via OTA updates; (See Konrardy Col. 6 Line 51- Col. 7 Line 4 and Col. 9 Line 64 – Col. 10 Line 3)
memory configured to store at least one instruction; (See Konrardy Col. 9 Line 64 – Col. 10 Line 3) and one or more processors configured to execute the at least one instruction stored in the memory to:
based on the update of the at least one of the software system or the hardware system of the SDV, automatically, send, to a second server, attribute information of the SDV, wherein the attribute information indicates the of at least one service of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV, wherein the at least one service comprises the service that modifies functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV, and wherein the modified functionality of the at least one vehicle device part is associated with at least one of a modified accident risk value or a modified user convenience value of the SDV; (See Konrardy Col. 17 Line 33-59)
receive, from the second server, a first assessment estimate that is determined based on at least one of the modified accident risk value or the modified user convenience value; (See Konrardy Col. 17 Line 33-59)
receive, from a user device, an indication of approval of the first assessment estimate; (See Konrardy Col. 41 Line 20-31) and
send, to the second server, information about the indication of approval of the first assessment estimate. (See Konrardy Col. 17 Line 1-7 and Col. 41 Line 20-31)
Konrardy does not teach receive, from a user device associated with an SDV of the SDVs, a request for a subscription service associated with at least one vehicle device part of the SDV;
update, based on the request for the subscription service, at least one of a software system or a hardware system of the SDV via an OTA update to cause activation of at least one feature-on-demand (FOD) service of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV and modification of functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV.
However, LUVÖ teaches receiving from a user device associated with an SDV of the SDVs, a request for a subscription service associated with at least one vehicle device part of the SDV; (See LUVÖ Paragraph 0027-0028)
update, based on the request for the subscription service, at least one of a software system or a hardware system of the SDV via an OTA update to cause activation of at least one feature-on-demand (FOD) service of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV and modification of functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV; (See LUVÖ Paragraph 0021,0036 and 0059)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the feature based vehicle insurance taught by Konrardy with teaching from LUVÖ to process request to subscribe the features of vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as the apparatus in Konrardy may be associated with in insurance provider and autonomous technology providers, (See Konrardy Col. 1-3) combining known services on a same platform increases user experience.
As per claim 15, Konrardy teaches a method comprising:
establishing, via a transceiver of the apparatus, a communication session with the SDV for over-the-air (OTA) update via wireless communication, wherein the SDVs are capable of updating software of vehicle device parts of the SDVs via OTA updates; (See Konrardy Col. 6 Line 51- Col. 7 Line 4 and Col. 9 Line 64 – Col. 10 Line 3)
based on the update of the at least one of the software system or the hardware system of the SDV, automatically, send, to a second server, attribute information of the SDV, wherein the attribute information indicates that a service of at least one vehicle device part of the SDV wherein the at least one service comprises service that modifies functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV, and wherein the modified functionality of the at least one vehicle device part is associated with at least one of a modified accident risk value or a modified user convenience value of the SDV; (See Konrardy Col. 17 Line 33-59)
receiving, from the second server, a first assessment estimate that is determined based on at least one of the modified accident risk value or the modified user convenience value; (See Konrardy Col. 17 Line 33-59)
receiving, from the user device, an indication of approval of the first assessment estimate; (See Konrardy Col. 41 Line 20-31) and
sending, to the second server, information about the indication of approval of the first assessment estimate. (See Konrardy Col. 17 Line 1-7 and Col. 41 Line 20-31)
Konrardy does not teach receiving, by an apparatus from a user device associated with a software-defined vehicle (SDV) of a plurality of SDVs, a request for a subscription service associated with at least one vehicle device part of the SDV;
updating, based on the request for the subscription service, at least one of a software system or a hardware system of the SDV via an OTA update to cause activation of at least one feature-on-demand (FOD) service of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV and modification of functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV;
However, LUVÖ teaches receiving from a user device associated with an SDV of the SDVs, a request for a subscription service associated with at least one vehicle device part of the SDV; (See LUVÖ Paragraph 0027-0028)
update, based on the request for the subscription service, at least one of a software system or a hardware system of the SDV via an OTA update to cause activation of at least one feature-on-demand (FOD) service of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV and modification of functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV; (See LUVÖ Paragraph 0021,0036 and 0059)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the feature based vehicle insurance taught by Konrardy with teaching from LUVÖ to process request to subscribe the features of vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as the apparatus in Konrardy may be associated with in insurance provider and autonomous technology providers, (See Konrardy Col. 1-3) combining known services on a same platform increases user experience.
As per claim 23, Konrardy teaches an apparatus comprising:
a transceiver configured to establish a communication session with at least one external device for over-the-air (OTA) update via wireless communication, wherein the SDV is capable of updating software of vehicle device parts of the SDV via OTA update; (See Konrardy Col. 6 Line 51- Col. 7 Line 4 and Col. 9 Line 64 – Col. 10 Line 3)
memory configured to store at least one instruction; (See Konrardy Col. 9 Line 64 – Col. 10 Line 3) and one or more processors configured to execute the at least one instruction stored in the memory to:
based on the update of the at least one of the software system or the hardware system of the SDV, cause automatic transmission, to at least one server, of attribute information of the SDV, wherein the attribute information indicates the at least one FOD service of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV, wherein the at least one FOD service comprises the subscription service that modifies functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV, and wherein the modified functionality of the at least one vehicle device part is associated with at least one of a modified accident risk value or a modified user convenience value of the SDV; (See Konrardy Col. 17 Line 33-59)
receive, from the at least one server, a first assessment estimate that is determined based on at least one of the modified accident risk value or the modified user convenience value. (See Konrardy Col. 17 Line 33-59)
Konrardy does not teach transmit a request for a subscription service associated with at least one vehicle device part of the SDV;
update, based on the request for the subscription service, at least one of a software system or a hardware system of the SDV via an OTA update;
activate at least one feature-on-demand (FOD) service of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV and modify functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV.
However, LUVÖ teaches receiving from a user device associated with an SDV of the SDVs, a request for a subscription service associated with at least one vehicle device part of the SDV; (See LUVÖ Paragraph 0027-0028)
update, based on the request for the subscription service, at least one of a software system or a hardware system of the SDV via an OTA update to cause activation of at least one feature-on-demand (FOD) service of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV and modification of functionality of the at least one vehicle device part of the SDV; (See LUVÖ Paragraph 0021,0036 and 0059)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the feature based vehicle insurance taught by Konrardy with teaching from LUVÖ to process request to subscribe the features of vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as the apparatus in Konrardy may be associated with in insurance provider and autonomous technology providers, (See Konrardy Col. 1-3) combining known services on a same platform increases user experience.
As per claims 2 and 16, Konrardy in view of LUVÖ teaches:
receive, from the user device, a request for a second service of at least one second device part of the SDV, wherein the second service is associated with at least one of a second accident risk value or a second user convenience value of the SDV; and receive, based on the request, a second assessment estimate that is determined based on at least one of the second accident risk value or the second convenience value. (See LUVÖ Paragraph 0027-0028 and Konrardy Col. 17 Line 33-59)
As per claims 3 and 17, Konrardy in view of LUVÖ teaches:
send, to the user device, the second assessment estimate; receive, from the user device, an indication of approval of the second assessment estimate; and send, to the second server, information about the indication of approval of the second assessment estimate. (See Konrardy Col. 17 Line 1-7 and Col. 41 Line 20-31)
As per claims 4 and 18, Konrardy in view of LUVÖ teaches:
wherein the second server comprises a plurality of second servers, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive, from the plurality of second servers, a plurality of assessment estimates, and wherein the second assessment estimate is different from at least one of the plurality of assessment estimates. (See Konrardy Col. 17 Line 1-7 and Col. 41 Line 20-31)
As per claims 5 and 19, Konrardy in view of LUVÖ teaches:
receive, from the user device, an indication of termination of the service for the SDV; and receive, from the second server, a second assessment estimate that reflects the termination of the service. (See LUVÖ Paragraph 0027-0028 and Konrardy Col. 17 Line 33-59)
As per claims 6 and 20, Konrardy in view of LUVÖ teaches:
send, to the user device, the second assessment estimate; receive, from the user device, an indication of approval of the second assessment estimate; and send, to the second server, information about the indication of approval of the second assessment estimate. (See LUVÖ Paragraph 0027-0028 and Konrardy Col. 17 Line 33-59)
As per claim 7, Konrardy in view of LUVÖ teaches:
wherein the second server comprises a plurality of second servers, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive, from the plurality of second servers, a plurality of assessment estimates, and wherein the second assessment estimate that reflects the termination of the service is different from at least one of the plurality of assessment estimates. (See LUVÖ Paragraph 0027-0028 and Konrardy Col. 17 Line 33-59)
As per claims 21, 22 and 24, Konrardy in view of LUVÖ teaches:
wherein the modified functionality of the at least one vehicle device part comprises at least one of an autonomous driving system functionality, a remote parking assistance system functionality, or a lane keeping assistance system functionality, and wherein the modified accident risk value indicates a safety rating of the SDV based on the subscription service. (See Konrardy Col. 6 Line 51- Col. 7 and LUVÖ Paragraph 0021)
Response to Arguments
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the claims integrate the Judicial Exception into practical application by providing improvement to technology, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner noted that the request for, and the subsequent activation of, FOD feature subscription is nonetheless a commercial interaction of providing service subscription upon request. It should be noted that if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract”) Furthermore, the alleged improvement is directed to assessment aspect of the Judicial Exception rather another technology because the claims merely encompass sending attributes modified by the subscribed features to an assessor who send back the first assessment estimate. An assessment estimate (insurance quote) based the features activated on a vehicle neither alter nor improve the technology of the SDV, only to the assessment itself. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 102 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHO KWONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7955. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL W ANDERSON can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHO YIU KWONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights