DETAILED ACTION
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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed May 11, 2026. Claims 1, 9-11, 18, and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed May 11, 2026 with respect to the previous double patenting rejections have been fully considered. Applicant has not contested the previous rejections therefore the previous rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed May 11, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered.
With respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues the claimed invention is eligible subject matter because the claims recite an improvement under Step 2A because Applicant asserts the independent claims recite several significant additional elements beyond what was identified as the abstract idea. Additionally, Applicant argues the claimed invention is eligible under Step 2B because the ordered combination of elements adds specific limitations that are improvements over what is well-understood, routine, and/or conventional in the field. Applicant argues the prior Office action offered no evidence demonstrating otherwise with respect to the specific ordered combination of limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes Applicant highlights several portions of independent claim and argues these are significant additional elements that render the claimed invention eligible subject matter, however, offers no argument or evidence to support this position beyond a conclusory statement.
Receiving first and second sets of telematics data collected by one of a plurality of sensors, wherein the sensors are used in routine and conventional ways, i.e., sensing vehicle movement, is a typical example of pre-solution data gathering which has long been considered by the courts to be an insignificant pre-solution activity.
Additionally, the subsequent determining of movement on the basis of the received data, is mere data processing of that received data, which is similarly insignificant because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the claimed invention.
Ranking based on the collected data is not an additional element, but the abstract idea because it is an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment, made on the basis of the receiving and processed data.
Allowing the driver to communicate with the subset of drivers derived from the claimed ranking is an example of insignificant post-solution activity in that is it is incidental to the crux of the invention which is the ranking of drivers (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Lastly, Applicant offers no evidence that the combination is meaningful, and only offers a conclusory statement. The combination does not appear meaningful because it follows the basic structure and sequencing of a control system which is to take in data, perform a calculation on the data, and output the results of the calculation.
For at least the above, the claims are not in condition eligible subject matter and the previous rejections are maintained.
Double Patenting
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12154394 B2, and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 10916075 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets are directed to nearly identical subject matter, namely, identifying a subset of participating drivers, selectively accessing a set of telematics data associated with each of a plurality of other vehicles operated by each of the subset of participating drivers, ranking a driver and each of the subset of participating drivers and displaying the ranking, with only minor and obvious differences.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 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. Claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of collecting data related to drivers, ranking the drivers on the basis of the collected data, displaying the ranking, obtaining additional data related to vehicle movement, re-ranking, and transmitting the results for display which is an abstract idea under its broadest reasonable interpretation because the claimed invention is directed to an evaluation, observation and/or judgment. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are either directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. data gathering, displaying results, etc., or generic hardware recited at a high level of generality, i.e., a processor, an electronic device and graphical user interface, a server, memory, etc., that provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method for incentivizing safe driving comprising: identifying, by one or more processors, a subset of drivers from among a group of other drivers; receiving, by the one or more processors, a first set of telematics data associated with a vehicle operated by a driver and a second set of telematics data associated with a group of other vehicles operated by the subset of drivers from among the group of other drivers, wherein: the first set of telematics data is collected by one or more sensors associated with the vehicle and comprising at least one of a barometer, a global positioning system sensor, or an accelerometer; and the second set of telematics data is collected by one or more respective sensors associated with each respective vehicle of the group of other vehicles, the one or more respective sensors comprising at least one of a respective barometer, a respective global positioning system sensor, or a respective accelerometer; determining, by the one or more processors, (1) a movement of the vehicle in three-dimensional space based at least on the first set of telematics data, and (2) a respective movement of each respective vehicle of the group of other vehicles based at least on the second set of telematics data; ranking, by the one or more processors, the driver and drivers of the subset of drivers by comparing the movement of the vehicle in the three-dimensional space and the respective movement of each respective vehicle of the group of other vehicles, wherein the ranking uses a respective ranking metric for each type of one or more movement types for the movement of the vehicle; transmitting, by the one or more processors, for display on a graphical user interface of an electronic device of the driver, a ranking of the driver, wherein the graphical user interface comprises one or more interactive control elements configured to (a) display information comprising the ranking of the driver, and (b) allow the driver to communicate with the subset of drivers from among the group of other drivers; and upon determining changes in one or more of: (a) the movement of the vehicle or (b) the respective movement of at least one vehicle of the group of other vehicles: re-ranking, by the one or more processors, the driver; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, for display on the graphical user interface of the electronic device of the driver, the ranking of the driver, as re-ranked.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mental process because comparing drivers in order to generate a ranking is an example of evaluations, observations and/or judgments, and evaluations, observations and/or judgments made on the basis of collected data are examples of abstract ideas. The additional elements of receiving telematics data, via sensors used conventionally, i.e., accelerometers used to generate vehicle movement data, etc., displaying the rankings, and allowing a driver to communicate with a subset of drivers, are examples of insignificant extra-solution activity and do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. The additional elements of a processor and an electronic device with a graphical user interface are recited at a high level of generality such that they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the claimed invention.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1 but do not render the claimed invention eligible because they are directed to insignificant additional elements primarily directed to the type of data to be collected or insignificant post-solution features related to transmitted notifications which do not render the claimed invention eligible.
Independent claims 11 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because the claims recite nearly identical subject matter but for insignificant differences related to different statutory categories.
Claims 12-19 depend from claim 11, and are rejected under the same rationale as dependent claims 2-10 because the claims recite nearly identical subject matter as already addressed above.
Claims 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights