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
The instant action is a non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities: see below. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13, 1, and 18, “a successful query” what is successful?
Further more successful is followed by a “first successful query” which connotes a “second successful query” though none can be identified. Claims 4 and 16 contain “a preliminary successful query”, it’s not clear if this is not the same as first? The examiner will interpret the claims literally, assuming “successful” can be defined as well. Clarification is required.
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 they are directed to an abstract idea without more.
Claims 1, 13 and 18 are the independent claims. The claims are directed to a device, method and non-transitory computer readable medium respectively, all of which are statutory claims.
Step 1 Yes
The is utilizing claim 13 as the representative claim.
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitations as certain methods of human activity and thus recite a fundamental economic practice. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
storing, in the at least one memory device, at least one product definition associated with a respective at least one location-specific product, wherein each at least one product definition includes a respective geofence within which the location-specific product is available for activation; receiving, from a user …, real-time telematics data, the real-time telematics data collected by at least one location … of the user … and identifying a real-time speed, heading, and location of the …; periodically querying the at least … with the real-time telematics data, a successful query of the at least … representing that the … has a real-time location within a geofence corresponding to a respective location-specific product of the at least one location-specific product; in response to a first successful query, receiving, from the at least …, a first product definition associated with a first product of the at least one location- specific product, wherein the first product is available for activation within a corresponding first geofence; generating a product identification message including at least a portion of the first product definition and an alert that … has entered the first geofence associated with the first product; and transmitting the product identification message to the …, the product identification message including instructions for the … to display the product identification message including the alert as a push notification on a user interface of the ….
The technical elements include; “a computer device, “user computer device”, sensor, memory device
Here the inventive concept of improvement to the function of the computer may be,
“It may reduce how often it requests location updates based on speed, heading, and estimated travel patterns.”, however, the claims as currently presented do not necessarily highlight this concept.
The recitation of generic computing elements as per above does not necessarily preclude a claim from reciting an abstract idea. Step 2A prong 1, yes the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The technical elements such as computer device, user computer device, sensor and memory device are recited at a high level of generality. This amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claims 1, 13 and 18 are thus directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. Step 2A prong 2, no the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that would be “significantly more”. They do not add significantly to the inventive concept. However, 0070-73 detail the reduced request for geolocation which may be helpful in establishing an inventive concept .
Step 2B No the claims do not provide significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-12,14-17 and 19-20 are rejected because they depend on claims 1, 13 or 18 and do not further include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication to Matus 20190005812 in view of US Patent Publication 20130204645 to Lehman
As per claim 13 Matus discloses; A computer-implemented method for activating on-demand products responsive to real-time geolocation data, the method implemented by a computing device including at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, the method comprising:
(pre-amble, minimal weight)
storing, in the at least one memory device, at least one product definition associated with a respective at least one location-specific product,
wherein each at least one product definition includes a respective geofence within which the location-specific product is available for activation;
Matus(0026, geofence specific tracking)
receiving, from a user computing device, real-time telematics data, the real-time telematics data collected by at least one location sensor of the user computing device and identifying a real-time speed, heading, and location of the user computing device; Matus(0026)
periodically querying the at least one memory device with the real-time telematics data, a successful query of the at least one memory device representing that the user computing device has a real-time location within a geofence corresponding to a respective location-specific product of the at least one location-specific product; in response to a first successful query, receiving, from the at least one memory device, a first product definition associated with a first product of the at least one location- specific product, wherein the first product is available for activation within a corresponding first geofence; Matus (0026, geofence tracking)
generating a product identification message including at least a portion of the first product definition and an alert that the user computing device has entered the first geofence associated with the first product;
Matus(geofence tracking, 0026)
and transmitting the product identification message to the user computing device, the product identification message including instructions for the user computing device to display the product identification message including the alert as a push notification on a user interface of the user computing device. Matus(0046, notifications are “pushed” though push is not utilized)
Matus uses Geofence tracking for insurance purposes but, does not offer an insurance product.
Lehman, 0040 describes a customizable insurance product quoting system.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the tracking teachings of Matus with the insurance teachings of Lehman for the motivation of supporting the needs of the customer. (0005)
Claims 1, 18 are similar to claim 13
As per claim 14, Matus does not explicitly disclose what Lehman teaches;
The computer-implemented method of Claim 13, further comprising: automatically activating the first product, based upon a preset preference of a user of the user computing device.
Lehman( 0030-31, provide automated POS for insurance quotes and insurance, automated requests)
The motivation for the combination would be similar to that for claim 1.
Claim 2 is similar to claim 14.
A per claim 15 Matus discloses;
the computer-implemented method of Claim 13, further comprising: receiving, from the user computing device, user input indicating a user of the user computing device has selected to activate the first product; and in response to the user input, activating the first product. Matus(0054, insurance)
Claim 3 is similar to claim 15.
As per claim Matus 4, The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: determine, based on a preliminary successful query of the at least one memory device, that the user computing device has entered a preliminary geofence bounding the first geofence and is approaching the first geofence;
generate a preliminary product identification message, the preliminary product identification message including at least a portion of the first product definition and a preliminary alert that the user computing device has entered the preliminary geofence and is approaching the first geofence; and prior to the user computing device entering the first geofence, transmit the preliminary product identification message to the user computing device,
the preliminary product identification message including instructions for the user computing device to display the preliminary product identification message including the preliminary alert as a push notification on a user interface of the user computing device.
Matus notifies a user device based on location, traffic related information, 0015-16, 0026)
Lehman teaches insurance sold in part based on the location of the user (0050)
The motivation for the combination would be similar to that provided for in claim 1.
Claim 16 is similar to claim 4.
As per claim 5, Matus discloses;
The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the real-time telematics data is received at a first frequency over a first interval of time, and wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: based upon the real-time telematics data, determine that future telematics data should be received at a second frequency; and transmit instructions to the user computing device to transmit the real-time telematics data at the second frequency for a subsequent second interval of time. Matus(0010)
Claim 17 is similar to claim 5.
As per claim 6 Matus discloses;
The computing device of Claim 5, wherein to determine that future telematics data should be received at a second frequency, the at least one processor is further programmed to execute machine learning or artificial intelligence techniques using the real-time telematics data of the user computing device.
Matus(0049, ML)
As per claim 7 Matus discloses; The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the first insurance product is associated with an additional or supplemental insurance policy.
Lehman(0047, additional or changed policy.)
Claim 19 is similar to claim 7.
As per claim 8 Matus discloses; The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the first product definition identifies a first location, associated with the first product, that is associated with high levels of risk or danger, wherein the first product is an additional or supplemental insurance policy that covers the high levels of risk or danger, and wherein the product identification message further includes an identification of the high levels of risk or danger.
Matus(Monitor risk for 0052-3, for insurance service)
As per claim 9 Matus discloses; The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the first product is associated with an event occurring at the first location.
Matus(0031, event could be an accident)
As per claim 10 Matus discloses; The computing device of Claim 9, wherein the first location includes a body of water and the event includes a weather event.
Matus(0017, weather)
As per claim 11, Matus discloses; The computing device of Claim 9, wherein the event includes a high road- traffic event.
Matus(0014-17, traffic)
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication to Matus 20190005812 in view of US Patent Publication 20130204645 to Lehman, further in view of US Patent 11042938 to Robare
As per claim 12, Matus and Lehman do not disclose what Robare teaches;
The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: identify at least one insurance policy associated with a user of the user computing device;
determine, based upon the location data and environmental data associated with the real-time location of the user computing device, that the user is underinsured, wherein the first product is an additional or supplemental insurance policy; and generate the product identification message to further include an alert that the user is underinsured and a selection option that, upon selection by the user on the user interface of the user computing device, enables the user to activate the first product. Robare(col. 13 and 14, in response to knowing the location and other factors, the under insured motorist can be offered supplemental insurance, Robare(col. 13 lines 30-50 for example.)
It would therefore have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the location tracking disclosure of Matus and the insurance of Lehman with the supplemental insurance of Robare for the motivation of “optimizing driver performance and safety, col. 1, lines 5-10)
Claim 20 is similar to claim 12
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Regulatory and Technical Constraints: An Overview of the Technical Possibilities and Regulatory Limitations of Vehicle Telematic Data, PMC 2021
A Mobile Health Application Using Geolocation for Behavioral Activity Tracking, PMC 2023
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights