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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR §1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR §1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR §1.17(e), was filed on July 6, 2026 in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR §1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR §1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action dated April 6, 2026 has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR §1.114 and the submission filed on July 6, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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;
receiving, [[via the user interface of the electronic device of the user]], an indication to exclude a portion of the transportation schedule;
revising the transportation schedule to exclude the portion of the transportation schedule and to create a revised transportation schedule;
determining an actual travel route associated with the user by at least receiving location data of [[the electronic device of the user]];
determining a percentage of time the user follows the revised transportation schedule by at least comparing data from the location data of [[the electronic device of the user]] to one or more stops of the revised transportation schedule;
updating the revised transportation schedule associated with the user based at least on the reason provided by the user to create an updated transportation schedule; and
upon receiving a real-time update associated with a change in the updated transportation schedule: further updating the transportation schedule based at least on the real-time update to create a further updated transportation schedule.
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
7. 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 revised transportation schedule; and
transmitting for display, the further updated 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
8. 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 revised transportation schedule; and
transmitting for display, the further updated 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
9. 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
10. 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 reward with the further revised transportation schedule, 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)).
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 limitation, “transmitting for display, the reward with the further revised transportation schedule, on the electronic device of the user.” This limitation is 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
11. Applicant’s arguments filed July 6, 2026 have been fully considered.
Arguments Regarding Double Patenting
12. The claims of the instant application have been sufficiently differentiated from the claims of the issued patent. Therefore, the double patenting rejection has been withdrawn accordingly.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101
13. 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 pages 12 and 13 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 of public transportation route planning by at least allowing users to exclude a portion of a transportation schedule 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 limitations, “receiving, via the user interface of the electronic device of the user, an indication to exclude a portion of the transportation schedule; revising the transportation schedule to exclude the portion of the transportation schedule and to create a revised transportation schedule.” These limitations simply state that the user may update the transportation schedule by providing input for excluding a portion of the transportation schedule. However, the claims do not provide any technical detail regarding how the input is received form the user and/or how the exclusions are applied to the transportation schedule. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely updating the transportation schedule. Such limitations simply further refine the abstract idea. Similarly, simply stating that the method includes receiving and analyzing location data associated with the user does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not provide any technical detail regarding how the location data is received and/or analyzed. Therefore, such limitations also simply further refine the abstract idea. Thus, 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 well-understood routine and conventional activity (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
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Haggiag (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20180240210): Describes an apparatus and system whereby a user can create transportation scheduling, either on-line, off-line or real-time basis without consuming extended periods of time and readily capable of rapidly addressing new sets of parameters and/or readily facilitating interactive permutation and alteration scenario running, either manually or automatically in accordance to predetermined prioritization.
Xia (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20200312147): Describes a method and an apparatus for displaying a travelling strategy based on public transportation. When the user appears in a first preset range of the starting public station, the first public transportation travelling strategy can be automatically acquired and displayed on the designated interface for the user's reference.
Conclusion
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