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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 08/05/2026. Claims 2, 4, 8-9, 11, 15-16, 18, and 21 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. No Claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 2-21 are currently pending.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) generating a driving score associated with a vehicle, receiving vehicle driving data, identifying an occurrence of a driving behavior, retrieving other vehicle driving data, analyzing the other vehicle driving data, and maintaining or adjusting a driver score.
The limitations generating a driving score associated with a vehicle, identifying an occurrence of a driving behavior, retrieving other vehicle driving data, analyzing the other vehicle driving data, and maintaining or adjusting a driver score, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting "a processor and a memory" nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a user can observe the data and mentally identify an occurrence of an event and mentally calculate or adjust a driver’s score using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of "a processor and a memory" to perform the recited steps. The processor and the memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitation of “receiving vehicle driving data associated with the vehicle and captured using one or more vehicle operation sensors”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (a processor) to perform the process. In particular, the “receiving vehicle driving data associated with the vehicle and captured using one or more vehicle operation sensors” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle condition data for use in the analysis process), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a processor and a memory to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of “receiving vehicle driving data associated with the vehicle and captured using one or more vehicle operation sensors”, is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background of the current application, Paragraphs 0003-0004 discloses that on-board diagnostics (OBD) systems may be used in automobiles and other vehicles and OBD systems may provide information from the vehicle's on-board computers and sensors, allowing users to monitor a wide variety of information relating to the vehicle systems. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC V. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC V. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., V. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well- understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 3, 10, and 17 describe the data and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18 recite the step of determining a time and location associated with the data and that falls under the mental process. Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 19-20 describe the vehicle sensors and the on-board data recording system and these additional elements have been analyzed above as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the art. Claims 8, 15, and 21 describe the output and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 2, 9, and 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 2-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 regarding step 2A, Prong One, that amended independent claim 2 is not directed to an abstract idea of a mental process, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner' s contentions. Applicant must also explain why the claims are not directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. Just reciting an improved driving analysis system that promotes safe driving via determination of a driving score based on an analysis of dataset(s) associated with a vehicle, and one or more other vehicles at or near a vehicle location is not an argument why the recited steps can’t be done mentally or fall under the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. As recited above, a user can observe the data and mentally identify an occurrence of an event and mentally calculate or adjust a driver’s score using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 2-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 regarding step 2A, Prong two, that independent claim 2, as a whole, recites an integration into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. The claims are directed to generating a driving score associated with a vehicle, receive and analyze other data, and maintaining or adjusting said score, i.e. data computation using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Accordingly, claims merely implement an old practice in a new environment. Since the claims require the use of a computer, it is this incorporation of a computer, not the claimed rule, that purportedly improves the existing technological process. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 2-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 regarding step 2B, that the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. As recited above, the additional element of a processor and a memory to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and “receiving vehicle driving data associated with the vehicle and captured using one or more vehicle operation sensors”, is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights