Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the application filed on 12/10/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
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 therefore, 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 directed to a method, a server, a non-transitory computer readable memory which is a process, machine, manufacturer or composition of matter and thus a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…capture vehicle usage data associated with the vehicle; receiving the vehicle usage data associated with the vehicle to determine a plurality of routes traversed by the vehicle for a particular time period; identify historical data having route and time identifiers that correspond to the plurality of routes traversed by the vehicle and the particular time period, respectively, wherein the historical data includes one or more of: non- collision incidents or collision incidents associated with one or more routes of the plurality of routes; assessing that the one or more routes of the plurality of routes traversed by the vehicle are hazardous based upon the one or more of: non-collision incidents or collision incidents associated with the one or more routes of the plurality of routes; and transmitting a suggested route that avoids the one or more routes of the plurality of routes”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, mitigating risk, i.e. providing a suggested route that is safe and mitigates the risk for the vehicle driver) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the method claim of one or more processors, the network, one or more sensors, a database and a navigation system that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “sending …control signals …. to cause to capture… vehicle usage data; receiving …the vehicle usage data to determine …a plurality of routes traversed by the vehicle…; accessing… to identify …historical data having route and time identifiers ….; assessing…that the one or more routes of the plurality of routes traversed by the vehicle are hazardous…; and transmitting… a suggested route that avoids the one or more routes of the plurality of routes”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the one or more processors, the network, the one or more sensors, the database and the navigation system that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “sending …control signals …. to cause to capture… vehicle usage data; receiving …the vehicle usage data to determine …a plurality of routes traversed by the vehicle…; accessing… to identify …historical data having route and time identifiers ….; assessing…that the one or more routes of the plurality of routes traversed by the vehicle are hazardous…; and transmitting… a suggested route that avoids the one or more routes of the plurality of routes”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are dependent on claims 1, 7 and 14. Therefore, claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1, 7 and 14. Claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-20 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the one or more processors, the network, the electronic device and the transceiver included in the dependent claims 2-6, 8-13, 15, 16 and 18-20 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “generating…a modified insurance premium based on at least one customer opportunity” (claims 2, 9 and 15); “transmitting … the modified insurance premium associated with a driver of the vehicle” (claims 3, 10 and 16); “causing … a risk index to be presented…” (claims 4, 11 and 18); “to determine telematics data…” (claims 5, 12 and 20); “transmitting… a virtual alert …to display: a first indication including at least one customer opportunity…; or a second indication excluding the at least one customer opportunity when the vehicle is determined not to have traversed the suggested route” (claims 6, 13 and 19); and “receive… a request for an insurance premium for vehicular travel” (claims 8 and 15), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-20 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the one or more processors, the network, the electronic device and the transceiver included in the dependent claims 2-6, 8-13, 15, 16 and 18-20 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “generating…a modified insurance premium based on at least one customer opportunity” (claims 2, 9 and 15); “transmitting … the modified insurance premium associated with a driver of the vehicle” (claims 3, 10 and 16); “causing … a risk index to be presented…” (claims 4, 11 and 18); “to determine telematics data…” (claims 5, 12 and 20); “transmitting… a virtual alert …to display: a first indication including at least one customer opportunity…; or a second indication excluding the at least one customer opportunity when the vehicle is determined not to have traversed the suggested route” (claims 6, 13 and 19); and “receive… a request for an insurance premium for vehicular travel” (claims 8 and 15), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 2-6 and 8-14 are not patent eligible.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 7 and 14 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,196 (co-pending U.S. Application No. 15/696,868). Both claims 1, 7 and 14 of the instant application and claims 1, 7 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,196 are directed to a method, a server and a non-transitory, computer-readable for transmitting a suggested route that avoids the hazardous routes traversed by the vehicle. However, claims 1, 7 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,196 also contains additional limitations not found in claims 1, 7 and 14 of the instant application, such as the limitations “…and wherein the one or more sensors are positioned to determine telematics data including one or more of a speed, a force, a heading, or a direction associated with movements of the vehicle; …wherein the one or more sensors include one or more of: a GPS unit, a digital camera, a video camera, a LIDAR sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, an infrared sensor, an ignition sensor, an odometer, a system clock, a speedometer, a tachometer, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a compass, a geolocation unit, radar unit, and an inductance sensor… (ii) claims data associated with a number of collision incidents, wherein the non-collision incidents comprise at least one of a number of traffic citations issued and a number of police reports; determining, by the one or more processors, that a comparison of the number of collision incidents with the number of non-collision incidents exceeds a predetermined threshold”. Accordingly, claims 1, 7 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,196 are directed to a species of claims 1, 7 and 14 of the current application (see MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional limitations of claims 1, 7 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,196 so that the suggested route would be determined more efficiently.
Notes: paragraph 36 of the Applicant’s specification describes features that would aid the claims in overcoming the pending 35 USC 101 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien C. Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights