Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed March 11, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-9, 13-17, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12154050. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. A mapping between the limitations of these claims is provided below.
Instant Application
Issued Patent
1. A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
generating, based at least on telematics data of a user, a first travel pattern for a first day of a week including one or more first locations,
wherein the first day of the week is a current day of the week;
causing a user interface of an electronic device of the user to: display one or more transportation schedules…
that are based at least on the first travel pattern; and
receive a selection from the user of a transportation schedule from the one or more transportation schedules;
determining an actual travel route associated with the user to determine a percentage of time the user follows the transportation schedule;
when the percentage of the time is below a predetermined threshold: transmitting for display, a prompt to the user interface of the electronic device of the user to provide a reason for why the user is not following the transportation schedule; and
updating the transportation schedule associated with the user based at least on the reason provided by the user; and
upon receiving a real-time update associated with a change in the transportation schedule: updating the transportation schedule based on the update; and
transmitting: for display, the transportation schedule, as updated, on the user interface of the electronic device of the user; and to the user interface of the electronic device of the user, a real-time alert associated with the real-time update
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: generating a competition for one or more users based at least on one or more percentages of times the one or more users follow their respective transportation schedules; and
transmitting for display, a ranking associated with the user in the competition, on the electronic device of the user.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: generating the transportation schedule based on at least one of: the first travel pattern; one or more transportation routes; or a traffic condition associated with one or more transit stops of the first travel pattern.
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting for display, a prompt for the user to select one or more preferences for the transportation schedule, on the electronic device of the user; and
updating, based at least on the one or more preferences, the transportation schedule for the user.
5. The system of claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise: generating a reward for the user for following the transportation schedule.
6. The system of claim 5, wherein: the operations further comprise: transmitting for display, the respective reward with the transportation schedule of the one or more transportation schedules, on the electronic device of the user; and
the transportation schedule of the one or more transportation schedules is associated with a respective reward.
7. The system of claim 5, wherein: the user has a usage-based insurance (UBI) policy associated with an insurance premium; and
the reward comprises at least one of: a discount of the insurance premium; or a credit toward the insurance premium.
8. A method comprising: generating, based at least on telematics data of a user, a first travel pattern for a first day of a week including one or more first locations,
wherein the first day of the week is a current day of the week;
causing a user interface of an electronic device of the user to: display one or more transportation schedules…
that are based at least on the first travel pattern; and
receive a selection from the user of a transportation schedule from one or more transportation schedules;
determining an actual travel route associated with the user to determine a percentage of time the user follows the transportation schedule;
when the percentage of the time is below a predetermined threshold: transmitting for display, a prompt to the user interface of the electronic device of the user to provide a reason for why the user is not following the transportation schedule; and
updating the transportation schedule associated with the user based at least on the reason provided by the user; and
upon receiving a real-time update associated with a change in the transportation schedule: updating the transportation schedule based on the real-time update; and
transmitting: for display, the transportation schedule, as updated, on the user interface of the electronic device of the user; and to the user interface of the electronic device of the user, a real-time alert associated with the real-time update.
9. The method of claim 8, further comprising: generating a competition for one or more users based at least on one or more percentages of times the one or more users follow their respective transportation schedules; and
transmitting for display, a ranking associated with the user in the competition, on the electronic device of the user.
10. The method of claim 8, further comprising: generating the transportation schedule based on at least one of: the first travel pattern; one or more transportation routes; or a traffic condition associated with one or more transit stops of the first travel pattern.
11. The method of claim 10, further comprising: transmitting for display, a prompt for the user to select one or more preferences for the transportation schedule, on the electronic device of the user; and
updating, based at least on the one or more preferences, the transportation schedule for the user.
12. The method of claim 10, further comprising: generating a reward for the user for following the transportation schedule.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein: the transportation schedule of the one or more transportation schedules is associated with a respective reward; and
transmitting for display, the respective reward with the transportation schedule of the one or more transportation schedules, on the electronic device of the user.
14.The method of claim 12, wherein: the user has a usage-based insurance (UBI) policy associated with an insurance premium; and
the reward comprises at least one of: a discount of the insurance premium; or a credit toward the insurance premium.
15. A non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when executed on one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
generating, based at least on telematics data of a user, a first travel pattern for a first day of a week including one or more first locations,
wherein the first day of the week is a current day of the week;
causing a user interface of an electronic device of the user to: display one or more transportation schedules…
that are based at least on the first travel pattern; and
receive a selection from the user of a transportation schedule from one or more transportation schedules
determining an actual travel route associated with the user to determine a percentage of time the user follows the transportation schedule;
when the percentage of the time is below a predetermined threshold: transmitting for display, a prompt to the user interface of the electronic device of the user to provide a reason for why the user is not following the transportation schedule; and
updating the transportation schedule associated with the user based at least on the reason provided by the user; and
upon receiving a real-time update associated with a change in the transportation schedule: updating the transportation schedule based on the real-time update; and
transmitting: for display, the transportation schedule, as updated, on the user interface of the electronic device of the user; and to the user interface of the electronic device of the user, a real-time alert associated with the real-time update.
16. The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: generating a competition for one or more users based at least on one or more percentages of times the one or more users follow their respective transportation schedules; and
transmitting for display, a ranking associated with the user in the competition, on the electronic device of the user.
17. The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: generating the transportation schedule based on at least one of: the first travel pattern; one or more transportation routes; or a traffic condition associated with one or more transit stops of the first travel pattern.
18. The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17, wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting for display, a prompt for the user to select one or more preferences for the transportation schedule, on the electronic device of the user; and
updating, based at least on the one or more preferences, the transportation schedule for the user.
19. The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17, wherein the operations further comprise: generating a reward for the user for following the transportation schedule.
20. The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 19, wherein: the operations further comprise: transmitting for display, the respective reward with the transportation schedule of the one or more transportation schedules, on the electronic device of the user;
the user has a usage-based insurance (UBI) policy associated with an insurance premium;
the transportation schedule of the one or more transportation schedules is associated with a respective reward; and
the reward comprises at least one of: a discount of the insurance premium; or a credit toward the insurance premium.
(claim 1) A computer system for generating a public transportation schedule, the computer system including at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, wherein the at least one processor is programmed to:
(claim 1) applying the trained machine learning model to the telematics data to generate a first travel pattern for a first day of a week including a plurality of first locations
(claim 1) the first day of the week is a current day of the week
(claim 1) cause a user interface to be executed on a user device of the user to display the plurality of public transportation schedules
(claim 1) generate a plurality of public transportation schedules for the current day for the user based at least in part upon the first travel pattern
(claim 1) receive a selection from the user of the public transportation schedule from the plurality of public transportation schedules
(claim 1) track, during multiple weeks occurring after the week, an actual travel route associated with the user during the first day of the multiple weeks to determine a percentage of time the user follows the public transportation schedule
(claim 1) in response to determining the percentage of the time being below a predetermined threshold: cause the user interface to prompt the user to provide a reason why the user is not following the public transportation schedule
(claim 1) update the public transportation schedule associated with the user based at least in part upon the reason provided by the user
(claim 1) upon receiving, from a public transportation provider, a real-time update associated with a delay or a disruption in the public transportation schedule based on the real-time traffic condition: update the public transportation schedule based at least in part on the real-time update; and
(claim 1) cause the user interface to display the public transportation schedule, as updated, and a real-time alert to the user.
(claim 5) generate a competition for the plurality of users based at least in part upon a plurality of percentages of time the plurality of users follow their corresponding public transportation schedules; and
(claim 5) cause the user interface to display to the user a ranking associated with the user in the competition for the plurality of the users
(claim 1) (claim 1) generate a plurality of public transportation schedules for the current day for the user based at least in part upon the first travel pattern
(claim 2) cause the user interface to prompt, via an application on the mobile device associated with the user, the user to select one or more preferences for the public transportation schedule; and
(claim 2) update, based at least in part upon the one or more preferences, the public transportation schedule for the user
(claim 6) provide a reward to the user for following the public transportation schedule, wherein the reward is based at least in part upon the percentage of time the user follows the public transportation schedule
(claim 7) causing the user interface to display the plurality of public transportation schedules comprises causing the user interface to display the respective reward with each of the plurality of public transportation schedules
(claim 7) each of the plurality of public transportation schedules is associated with a respective reward
(claim 8) wherein the user has a usage-based insurance (UBI) policy associated with an insurance premium through an insurance provider, and
(claim 8) wherein the reward includes at least one of a discount of the insurance premium or a credit toward the insurance premium.
(claim 9) applying the trained machine learning model to the telematics data to generate a first travel pattern for a first day of a week including a plurality of first locations
(claim 9) the first day of the week is a current day of the week
(claim 9) causing a user interface to be executed on a user device of the user to display the plurality of public transportation schedules
(claim 9) generating a plurality of public transportation schedules for the current day for the user based at least in part upon the first travel pattern
(claim 9) receive a selection from the user of the public transportation schedule from the plurality of public transportation schedules
(claim 9) tracking, during multiple weeks occurring after the week, an actual travel route associated with the user during the first day of the multiple weeks to determine a percentage of time the user follows the public transportation schedule
(claim 9) in response to determining the percentage of the time being below a predetermined threshold: causing the user interface to prompt the user to provide a reason why the user is not following the public transportation schedule
(claim 9) updating the public transportation schedule associated with the user based at least in part upon the reason provided by the user
(claim 9) upon receiving, from a public transportation provider, a real-time update associated with a delay or a disruption in the public transportation schedule based on the real-time traffic condition: updating the public transportation schedule based at least in part on the real-time update; and
(claim 9) causing the user interface to display the public transportation schedule, as updated, and a real-time alert to the user.
(claim 13) generating a competition for the plurality of users based at least in part upon a plurality of percentages of time the plurality of users follow their corresponding public transportation schedules; and
(claim 13) causing the user interface to display to the user a ranking associated with the user in the competition for the plurality of the users.
(claim 9) generating a plurality of public transportation schedules for the current day for the user based at least in part upon the first travel pattern
(claim 13) transmitting for display, a prompt for the user to select one or more preferences for the transportation schedule, on the electronic device of the user; and
(claim 13) updating, based in part on the one or more preferences, the transportation schedule for the user
(claim 14) providing a reward to the user for following the public transportation schedule
(claim 15) wherein: each of the plurality of public transportation schedules is associated with a respective reward; the reward is associated with the public transportation schedule; and
(claim 15) causing the user interface to display the plurality of public transportation schedules comprises causing the user interface to display the respective reward with each of the plurality of public transportation schedules.
(claim 8) wherein the user has a usage-based insurance (UBI) policy associated with an insurance premium through an insurance provider, and
wherein the reward includes at least one of a discount of the insurance premium or a credit toward the insurance premium.
(claim 16) At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor to:
(claim 16) generate a first travel pattern for a first day of a week including a plurality of first locations
(claim 16) the first day of the week is a current day of the week
(claim 16) cause a user interface to be executed on a user device of the user to display the plurality of public transportation schedules
(claim 16) generate a plurality of public transportation schedules for the current day for the user based at least in part upon the first travel pattern
(claim 16) receive a selection from the user of the public transportation schedule from the plurality of public transportation schedules
(claim 16) track, during multiple weeks occurring after the week, an actual travel route associated with the user during the first day of the multiple weeks to determine a percentage of time the user follows the public transportation schedule
(claim 16) in response to determining the percentage of the time being below a predetermined threshold: cause the user interface to prompt the user to provide a reason why the user is not following the public transportation schedule
(claim 16) update the public transportation schedule associated with the user based at least in part upon the reason provided by the user
(claim 16) upon receiving, from a public transportation provider, a real-time update associated with a delay or a disruption in the public transportation schedule based on the real-time traffic condition: update the public transportation schedule based at least in part on the real-time update; and
(claim 16) cause the user interface to display the public transportation schedule, as updated, and a real-time alert to the user.
(claim 20) generate a competition for the plurality of users based at least in part upon a plurality of percentages of time the plurality of users follow their corresponding public transportation schedules; and
(claim 20) cause the user interface to display to the user a ranking associated with the user in the competition for the plurality of the users.
(claim 16) generate a plurality of public transportation schedules for the current day for the user based at least in part upon the first travel pattern
(claim 17) cause the user interface to prompt, via an application on the mobile device associated with the user, the user to select one or more preferences for the public transportation schedule; and
(claim 17) update, based at least in part upon the one or more preferences, the public transportation schedule for the user
(claim 6) provide a reward to the user for following the public transportation schedule
(claim 7) causing the user interface to display the plurality of public transportation schedules comprises causing the user interface to display the respective reward with each of the plurality of public transportation schedules
(claim 8) wherein the user has a usage-based insurance (UBI) policy associated with an insurance premium through an insurance provider, and
(claim 7) wherein: each of the plurality of public transportation schedules is associated with a respective reward
(claim 8) wherein the reward includes at least one of a discount of the insurance premium or a credit toward the insurance premium.
Therefore, because claims 1, 2, 5-9, 13-17, and 20 of the issued patent teach each limitation of claims 1-20 of the instant application, claims 1-20 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1, 2, 5-9, 13-17, and 20 of the issued patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and does not include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 and October 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Step 1
6. Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 8-14), a machine (claims 1-7) and a manufacture (claims 15-20). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
7. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
generating, based at least on telematics data of a user, a first travel pattern for a first day of a week including one or more first locations, wherein the first day of the week is a current day of the week;
causing [[a user interface on an electronic device of the user]] to: receive a selection from the user of a transportation schedule from the one or more transportation schedules;
determining an actual travel route associated with the user to determine a percentage of time the user follows the transportation schedule;
updating the transportation schedule associated with the user based at least on the reason provided by the user; and
upon receiving a real-time update associated with a change in the transportation schedule: updating the transportation schedule based at least on the real-time update.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and/or commercial interactions (e.g., facilitating the distribution of insurance-related payments). The dependent claim (e.g., claims 5-7) and the specification make it clear that the transportation schedule is used in a process for generating a financial reward regarding an insurance policy for following the public transportation schedule. Additionally, the claims may also be considered a method of managing personal behavior because they recite limitations for generating a schedule for the user to follow, and determining whether the user follows the instructions. Such limitations fall under the definition of managing personal behavior described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (e.g., following rules or instructions).
Step 2A, Prong 2
8. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which claim 1 is directed does not include limitations or additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the limitations of claim 1 also recite generic computer components (e.g., one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions, and a user interface of an electronic device of the user). In particular, the recited features of the abstract idea are merely being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In other words, the additional elements are simply used as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Additionally, the examiner notes that simply stating that the claimed processes are performed in “real-time” does not amount to an improvement to any technology or technological field. The claims and specification do not provide any technical detail regarding how these processes are implemented in real-time. Therefore, the real-time nature of these processes is merely achieved through the implementation of generic computer-related components, as described above.
Claim 1 also recites the following limitation:
causing a user interface of an electronic device of the user to: display one or more transportation schedules that are based at least on the first travel pattern;
when the percentage of the time is below a predetermined threshold: transmitting for display, a prompt to the user interface of the electronic device of the user to provide a reason for why the user is not following the transportation schedule; and
transmitting for display, the transportation schedule, as updated, on the user interface of the electronic device of the user; and
to the user interface of the electronic device of the user, a real-time alert associated with the real-time update.
These limitations simply state that the system transmits and outputs various information (e.g., a the transportation schedules, a prompt to receive user input and the transportation schedule, and an update/alert associated with the transportation schedule) to the user. However, the claim does not provide significant technical detail regarding how the information is displayed. Therefore, these limitations amount to no more than merely outputting/displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2016.05(g): OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Thus, claim 1 does not include any limitations or additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As a result, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
9. Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements of claim 1 are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the recited additional elements (e.g., one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions, and a user interface of an electronic device of the user), do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality such that they are being used in the claims to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved (See e.g., MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)); (See also applicant’s Specification at least Paragraphs 63-70).
Additionally, the following limitation identified above as insignificant extra-solution activity (merely outputting/displaying data) has been reevaluated under Step 2B:
causing a user interface of an electronic device of the user to: display one or more transportation schedules that are based at least on the first travel pattern;
when the percentage of the time is below a predetermined threshold: transmitting for display, a prompt to the user interface of the electronic device of the user to provide a reason for why the user is not following the transportation schedule; and
transmitting for display, the transportation schedule, as updated, on the user interface of the electronic device of the user; and
to the user interface of the electronic device of the user, a real-time alert associated with the real-time update.
As stated in MPEP 2106.05(d), a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of this requirement set forth by Berkheimer, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of merely outputting/displaying data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Thus, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Additional Independent Claims
10. Independent claims 8 and 15 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons described below:
Claim 8 recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in claim 1. However, the primary difference between claims 8 and 1 is that claim 8 is drafted as a method rather than as a system. Similarly, as described above regarding claim 1, claim 8 recites generic computer components (e.g., a user interface of an electronic device of the user) that are simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, since the same analysis should be used for claims 1 and 8, claim 8 is not patent eligible (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)).
Claim 15 recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in claim 1. However, the primary difference between claims 15 and 1 is that claim 15 is drafted as a computer-readable media rather than as a system. Similarly, as described above regarding claim 1, claim 15 recites generic computer components (e.g., a non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions, one or more processors, and a user interface of an electronic device of the user) that are simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, since the same analysis should be used for claims 1 and 15, claim 15 is not patent eligible (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)).
Dependent Claims
11. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons described below:
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite the limitation, “generating a competition for one or more users based at least on one or more percentages of times the one or more users follow their respective transportation schedules.” This limitation simply refines the abstract idea because it recites a process step (e.g., generating a competition for one or more users) that falls under the category of organizing human activity as described above regarding claim 1.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 simply provides further definition to the “transportation schedule” recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. Simply stating that the transportation schedule is based on the first travel pattern, the one or more transportation routes, or a traffic condition associated with one or more transit stops of the first travel pattern does not provide an indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this merely defines the type of information used to generate the transportation schedule.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite the limitation, “transmitting for display, a prompt for the user to select one or more preferences for the transportation schedule, on the electronic device of the user.” This limitation simply states that the system displays a prompt to the user via the electronic device of the user. However, the claim does not provide significant technical detail regarding how the prompt is displayed, and/or how the user interacts with the prompt. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely outputting/displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2016.05(g): OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). In view of this requirement set forth by Berkheimer, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of merely outputting/displaying data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Additionally, claims 4, 11, and 18 recite the limitation, “updating, based at least on the one or more preferences, the transportation schedule for the user.” This limitation simply refines the abstract idea because it recites a process step (e.g., updating the transportation schedule based on the user preferences) that falls under the category of organizing human activity as described above regarding claim 1.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 simply refine the abstract idea because they recite a process step (e.g., generating a reward for the user for following the transportation schedule) that falls under the category of organizing human activity as described above regarding claim 1.
Claims 6 and 13 recite the limitation, “transmitting for display, the respective reward with the transportation schedule of the one or more transportation schedules, on the electronic device of the user.” This limitation simply states that the system displays the transportation schedule to the user via the electronic device of the user. However, the claim does not provide significant technical detail regarding how the schedule is displayed, and/or how the user interacts with the schedule. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely outputting/displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2016.05(g): OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). In view of this requirement set forth by Berkheimer, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of merely outputting/displaying data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Additionally, claims 6 and 13 recite the limitation, “the transportation schedule of the one or more transportation schedules is associated with a respective reward.” This limitation simply provides further definition to the “transportation schedule” recited in claims 1 and 8. Simply stating that the transportation schedule is associated with a respective reward does not provide an indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this merely defines how the schedule is associated with the reward.
Claims 7 and 14 simply provide further definition to the “reward” recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. Simply stating that the reward is associated with a discount or credit toward a usage-based insurance policy does not provide an indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this merely defines the type of financial reward provided to the user.
Claim 20 recites the limitations, “transmitting for display, the respective reward with the transportation schedule of the one or more transportation schedules, on the electronic device of the user; the transportation schedule of the one or more transportation schedules is associated with a respective reward.” These limitations are substantially similar to those recited in claim 6. Therefore, these limitations are not patent eligible for the reasons described above regarding claim 6.
Claim 20 also recites the limitations, “the user has a usage-based insurance (UBI) policy associated with an insurance premium; the reward comprises at least one of: a discount of the insurance premium; or a credit toward the insurance premium.” These limitations are substantially similar to those recited in claim 7. Therefore, these limitations are not patent eligible for the reasons described above regarding claim 7.
Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments filed March 11, 2026 have been fully considered.
Arguments Regarding Double Patenting
13. The claims of the instant application have not been sufficiently differentiated from the claims of the issued patent. Therefore, the double patenting rejection has been maintained and updated to address the newly added claim limitations.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101
14. Applicant’s arguments (Amendment, Pgs. 12-14) concerning the prior rejection of the claims under 35 USC §101, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive for the following reasons. Under the prior and current 101 analysis under 2019 PEG, the amended claims recite and are directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea, without something significantly more, for the reasons given above after consideration of the claimed features and elements. The abstract idea has been restated herein in line with the 2019 PEG guidance and the amended claims. Applicant is directed to the above full Alice/Mayo analysis in the 101 rejection.
Additionally, on page 12 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite an improvement to other technology or technical field, and also recite use of the ideas in a meaningful way beyond generally linking to a particular technological environment. For example, amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite many significant additional elements above and beyond what the Office Action identifies as the abstract idea, including, among other things… The specific, concrete approach in these additional elements provides a combination of steps that (a) improves the technical field public transportation route planning and (b) uses the combination of steps in a meaningful way that is not generally linking to a technological environment.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner notes that the claim limitations identified by the applicant do not amount to a technical improvement to any technology or technological field. For example, claim 1 recites the limitation, “causing a user interface of an electronic device of the user to: display one or more transportation schedules that are based at least on the first travel pattern.” This limitation simply states that the user interface displays one or more transportation schedules. However, the claims do not provide any technical detail regarding how the transportation schedules are displayed. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely outputting/displaying data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations of claim 1, when considered individually or in combination, provide no indication of a technical improvement to transportation route planning, or any other technology or technological field. Rather, the claims simply apply generic computer-related components to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, on page 13 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully submits that the specific ordered combination of limitations recited in amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The Patent Office provides no evidence that demonstrates otherwise for the specific ordered combination of limitations recited in amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner notes that evidence indicating that each limitation recited in the claims is “well-understood, routine, and conventional” is not required by the examiner. Rather, this analysis only applies to limitations that the examiner has identified as additional elements (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Such evidence has been provided for each limitation identified by the examiner as an additional element (See the Step 2B analysis in the 101 rejection above). Additionally, as noted above, the claims do not provide any indication of a technical improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, the claims simply recite the use of generic computer-related components to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Therefore, for these reasons and the reasons given above, the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gontmakher (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20140111358): Describes a method that includes generating scheduling information for a user based on user data and the public transportation data, determining that the real-time vehicle location information deviates from at least one of the historical real-time vehicle location information or the scheduled vehicle location information by more than a threshold deviation, and updating the scheduling information for the user based on the user data, the public transportation data, and the determined deviation.
Delling (U.S. Patent No. 8494771): Describes a system and method for determining optimal journeys in public transportation networks. The determination of optimal journeys from one stop to another stop in a public transportation network uses criteria such as travel time and minimum transfers.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D NEWLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart can be reached at (571) 272-3955. 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.
/WILLIAM D NEWLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights