DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Application
2. Pursuant to the amendment filed July 28, 2026, claims 2-21 are pending in the application. The applicant has cancelled claim 1. The applicant has amended claims 2, 9, and 16.
Response to Arguments
3. The applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks,” filed July 28, 2026, with respect to the Section 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Section 101 rejection of claims 2-16 has been withdrawn.
Terminal Disclaimer
4. The terminal disclaimer filed on July 28 ,2026, disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12,246,730, US 11,878,700, US 11,433,908, and US 10,946,862 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 16, recites, in relevant part, “[a] non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to” perform functions. Regarding memory, the specification discloses:
Memory 115 may include, but is not limited to, random access memory (RAM) 105, read only memory (ROM) 107, electronically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM), flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical disk storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium that can be used to store the desired information and that can be accessed by processor 103.
(US 2025/0276698 A1; [0032]) Because the specification discloses that memory “is not limited to” physical embodiments of memory but also includes, “any other medium that can be used to store the desired information and that can be accessed by processor 103,” it is not clear that the limitation, “non-transitory” is sufficient to exclude from the scope of claim 16 other types of memory media. Among those other types of memory media would be electromagnetic radiation modulated with digital code, which constitutes a signal, which is per se non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 17-21 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 16 because claims 17-21 depend from claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. Claims 2-21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srey et al. (US 9,031,545 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Srey discloses:
a system (col. 7, lines 7-10; FIG. 2: 206) comprising:
one or more processors (col. 4, lines 30-33; col. 6, line 66 – col 7, line 6; FIG. 1B: 103); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to (col. 6, lines 11-21):
detect a start of a trip of a vehicle (col. 25, lines 28-31; FIG. 8: 824; ignition confirmation message);
Srey does not explicitly disclose determining an initial rate for a segment of the trip, but Srey does disclose determining an initial rate for a trip (col. 24, lines 29-33, 53-56; FIG. 8: 810), and a segment is merely an arbitrary measure of division of a trip, which could be characterized as a segment of a longer trip that includes it, and the entirety of a trip is a segment of a trip consisting of 100% of the trip, all of which suggests that the system of Srey comprises determining an initial rate for a segment of the trip for the benefit of determining an initial rate for any segment of a trip, including 100% of the trip;
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the system of Srey in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the system to determine an initial rate for any segment of a trip, including 100% of a trip;
receive vehicle operation data characterizing operation of the vehicle during the segment, wherein the vehicle operation data includes data received from one or more sensors of the vehicle (col. 10, lines 46-58; col 24, lines 56-59; col. 25, lines 32-38; FIG. 8: 830);
receive, in real-time while the vehicle is moving, vehicle operation data characterizing operation of the vehicle during the segment, wherein the vehicle operation data includes sensor data received from one or more sensors of the vehicle (col. 8, line 41 - col. 9, line 5; col 10 lines 23-28);
determine, in real-time while the vehicle is moving, a amount based on the initial rate and the vehicle operation data of the segment of the trip (col. 25, lines 39-50; FIG. 8: 836, 838); and
determine, in real-time while the vehicle is moving, an updated rate by analyzing the vehicle operation data of the segment of the trip (col. 25, lines 39-50; col. 26, lines 7-13; FIG. 8: 836, 838, 840),
wherein analyzing the vehicle operation data includes detecting, from the sensor data, at least one of an acceleration event, a turning event, or a braking event exceeding a threshold (col. 25, lines 51-66), and in response, applying the updated rate to one or more additional segments of the trip while the vehicle is moving (col. 25, lines 39-50; col. 26, lines 7-24).
Regarding claim 3, Srey discloses that the start of the trip is determined by an indication received through an application running on a computing device of a driver associated with the vehicle. (col. 3, lines 46-48)
Regarding claim 4, Srey discloses that the start of the trip is determined by detected movement of the vehicle based on GPS data of the one or more sensors of the vehicle. (col. 21, line 59 – col. 22, line 13)
Regarding claim 5, Srey does not explicitly disclose that determining the initial rate further comprises: querying a database to retrieve the initial rate, but Srey does disclose that an insurance underwriting system queries a customer database for driver information and vehicle information (col. 22, lines 20-31); Srey does disclose that an insurance rate determination module determines a personalized insurance rate for a driver based on vehicle telematics data collected from the vehicle (col. 23, lines 25-28); Srey does disclose determining the personalized insurance rate based on past vehicle telematics data associated with the driver (col. 12, lines 47-53); and Srey does disclose that the personalized insurance rate is based on vehicle telematics data obtained for a previous trip (col. 23, lines 28-34); all of which suggests that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the system of Srey to determine the initial rate by querying a database to retrieve the initial rate for the benefit of avoiding unnecessary data processing when the telematics data for a previous trip corresponds to the telematics data for a planned trip.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the system of Srey in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the system to avoid unnecessary data processing when the telematics data for a previous trip corresponds to the telematics data for a planned trip.
Regarding claim 6, Srey discloses that analyzing the vehicle operation data comprises: assigning one of a positive evaluation or a negative evaluation to the segment. (col. 26, lines 44-47)
Regarding claim 7, Srey discloses that an assignment of the negative evaluation is based up on a number of instances of negative driving behavior exceeding a predetermined threshold. (col. 26, lines 54-62)
Regarding claim 8, Srey discloses that the updated rate is decreased in response to the positive evaluation, and wherein the updated rate is increased in response to the negative evaluation. (col. 27, lines 2-7; FIG. 10: 912)
Regarding claim 9, Srey discloses a computer-implemented method (col. 3, lines 31-36; FIG. 1B: 101; methods that encourage good driving; computing device 101 used in the embodiments of the disclosure); otherwise, claim 9 is rejected as claim 2.
Claim 10 is rejected as claim 3.
Claim 11 is rejected as claim 4.
Clam 12 is rejected as claim 5.
Claim 13 is rejected as claim 6.
Clam 14 is rejected as claim 7.
Claim 15 is rejected as claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, Srey discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to execute steps (lines 11-21; FIG. 1B: 115; memory 115 stores software); otherwise, claim 16 is rejected as claim 2.
Claim 17 is rejected as claim 3.
Claim 18 is rejected as claim 4.
Claim 19 is rejected as claim 6.
Claim 20 is rejected as claim 7.
Claim 21 is rejected as claim 8.
Response to Arguments
9. The applicant's arguments, filed July 28, 2026, regarding the Section 103 rejections, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Tahe applicant traverses the rejection of claims 2-21.
Against the rejection of claim 2, the applicant argues that Applicant respectfully submits Srey does not teach, suggest, or render obvious each and every element of amended independent claim 1. In particular, Srey does not teach or suggest a system comprising, among other things, determining, in real-time while the vehicle is moving, an updated rate by analyzing the vehicle operation data of the segment of the trip, wherein analyzing the vehicle operation data includes detecting, from the sensor data, at least one of an acceleration event, a turning event, or a braking event exceeding a threshold, and in response, applying the updated rate to one or more additional segments of the trip while the vehicle is moving.
Srey discloses “… The insurance underwriting system may configure the ignition record to include (or otherwise be associated with) the shutoff timestamp information indicating the date and time at which the vehicle shut off as well as the location information indicating the geographic location at which the vehicle is shut off. It will be appreciated that, by collecting ignition records and associated vehicle telematics records, the insurance underwriting system may build a personal driving history for the driver on which the personalized insurance rate for the driver may be, at least in part, determined …” (emphasis added by applicant). See Srey at Col. 23, line 35 to Col. 24, line 16.
Srey does not teach or suggest determining, in real-time while the vehicle is moving, an updated rate by analyzing the vehicle operation data of the segment of the trip, wherein analyzing the vehicle operation data includes detecting, from the sensor data, at least one of ana acceleration event, a turning event, or a braking event exceeding a threshold, and in response, applying the updated rate to one or more additional segments of the trip while the vehicle is moving (emphasis added). As such, Srey does not teach, suggest, or render obvious each and every element of amended independent claim 2.
Regarding this argument, Srey discloses, as cited in the Final Rejection above, that “[t]he insurance underwriting system may encourage safe driving during the trip by adjusting the initial personalized insurance rate based on the driving behaviors observed during the trip” (col. 25, lines 39-42). In this passage, Srey explicitly discloses that the system adjusts the insurance rate “during the trip,” which means in real-time. Srey discloses that the adjustment of the insurance rate is based on driving behaviors observed “during the trip,” which indicates that the insurance rate is adjusted in real-time based on driving behaviors observed in real-time.
Regarding driving behaviors, Srey discloses:
The insurance underwriting system may assess whether a driving behavior is a safe or unsafe driving behavior based on the vehicle telematics data collected and the various characteristics discussed above. The insurance underwriting system may, for example, define exceeding the speed limit more than an average of five miles per hour during the trip as an unsafe driving behavior and define maintaining the speed limit during the trip as a safe driving behavior. As another example, the insurance underwriting system may define turning the vehicle at or above a predetermined speed as an unsafe driving behavior and define turning the vehicle at or below a predetermined speed as a safe driving behavior. A further example may define gradual stops (e.g., stopping the vehicle at or below a predetermined deceleration rate) as a safe driving behavior and define hard stops (e.g., stopping the vehicle at or above a predetermine deceleration rate) as an unsafe driving behavior. Such driving behaviors may be defined bases on the various characteristics set forth above and indicated by the vehicle telematics data provided by the vehicle telematics device. It will be appreciated with the benefit of this disclosure that the insurance underwriting system may define many more safe and unsafe driving behaviors that can affect the personalized insurance rate for the driver.
(col. 25, line 51 – col. 26, line 6; emphasis added) In this passage, Srey discloses that driving behaviors comprise exceeding the speed limit by more than 5 miles per hour, which is a threshold, turning the vehicle at or above a predetermined speed, which is a threshold, and stopping the vehicle at or above a predetermined deceleration, which is a threshold. Together with the passage discussed above, this passage shows that Srey discloses that the system adjusts the insurance rate in real-time based on driving behaviors observed in real-time, wherein the driving behaviors comprise speeding above a threshold, which comprises acceleration, turning above a predetermined speed, and stopping above a predetermined deceleration rate. These disclosures meet the limitations of amended claim 1:
determine, in real-time while the vehicle is moving, an updated rate by analyzing the vehicle operation data of the segment of the trip, wherein analyzing the vehicle operation data includes detecting, from the sensor data, at least one of an acceleration event, a turning event, or a braking event exceeding a threshold, and in response, applying the updated rate to one or more additional segments of the trip while the vehicle is moving.
Against the rejection of claims 9 and 16, the applicant argues that the arguments presented above with regards to amended independent claim 2 apply with equal weight to amended independent claims 9 and 16.
Regarding this argument, the above responses to the arguments against the rejection of claim 2 are also responsive to this argument.
Against the rejection of the dependent claims, the applicant argues that the arguments in favor of independent claims 2, 9, and 16 also support the allowance of the dependent claims.
Regarding this argument, the above responses to the arguments in support of the independent claims are also applicable to this argument.
Conclusion
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F MORTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 ET.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/JOHN F MORTELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights