DETAILED ACTION
Responsive to the claims filed September 3, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,423,733. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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. The claimed invention is directed to the concept of generating user offerings. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The Examiner will further explain in view of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance using exemplary claim 8:
8. A computer-implemented method for processing vehicle-based telematics data, the method implemented using an analytics computing device including at least one processor in communication with a memory device, the method comprising:
based upon a driver profile of a driver created from historical telematics data of the driver, selecting a user offering and an indication of driving behavior of the driver;
causing to be displayed, on a user computing device associated with the driver, the user offering, the indication of the driving behavior of the driver and a recommendation including at least one of (i) one or more alternate forms of transportation for the driver to use on trips or (ii) actions to improve the driving behavior, the user offering including an incentive if the recommendation is implemented; and
after the user offering is displayed:
determining whether the recommendation has been implemented by analyzing current telematics data associated with current trips taken by the driver; and
in response to determining that the recommendation has been implemented, transmitting, to the user computing device, a confirmation message indicating that the driver has earned the incentive.
The claim recites a series of steps and therefore is directed to a process, which satisfies step 1 of the Section 101 analysis. Under the new two-prong inquiry, the claim is eligible at revised step 2A unless it: Prong One: the claim recites a judicial exception; and Prong Two: the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception.
The above claim steps are directed to the concept of generating user offerings, which is an abstract idea that falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (commercial interaction). (Prong one: YES, recites an abstract idea).
The October 2019 Update explains on pages 7-8 that claims do recite a mental process when the claim limitations can practically be performed in the human mind. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include Electric Power Group, LLC which was directed to collection information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and Classen which was directed to collecting and comparing known information. The courts have also found that claims that require a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind (page 8 of the October 2019 Update). The Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer
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. The claim recites the additional limitation of at least one processor, a memory device and a user computing device which are generic and are being used in their ordinary capacity. The claims do not recite unconventional hardware, or a specific algorithmic improvement, or specific algorithmic structure beyond result oriented functional language.
The remaining claims are rejected under similar grounds and do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that are indicative of an inventive concept. The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, it is noted that the implementation of the abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. The claims merely invoke the additional elements as tools that are being used in their ordinary capacity. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not add significantly more. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improve any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Regarding computer functions, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) states: The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and
vi. A web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
ii. Shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iii. Restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
iv. Identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017);
v. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
vi. Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
vii. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wright (US 10,198,879).
As per claim 1, Wright teaches an analytics computing device for processing vehicle-based telematics data, the analytics computing device comprising at least one processor in communication with a memory device, the at least one processor configured to:
based upon a driver profile of a driver created from historical telematics data of the driver, select a user offering and an indication of driving behavior of the driver (see at least column 22, lines 9-20, column 15, line 40-column 16, line 25, column 30, lines 44-51);
cause to be displayed, on a user computing device associated with the driver, the user offering, the indication of the driving behavior of the driver and a recommendation including at least one of (i) one or more alternate forms of transportation for the driver to use on trips or (ii) actions to improve the driving behavior, the user offering including an incentive if the recommendation is implemented (see at least column 12, lines 27-39); and
after the user offering is displayed: determine whether the recommendation has been implemented by analyzing current telematics data associated with current trips taken by the driver (see at least column 13, lines 35-56, column 6, lines 11-29); and
in response to determining that the recommendation has been implemented, transmit, to the user computing device, a confirmation message indicating that the driver has earned the incentive (see at least column 12, lines 27-39).
As per claim 2, Wright teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate a contextualized driver profile by synthesizing the driver profile and contextual data associated with an environment in which the driver travelled during a plurality of historical trips (see at least column 22, lines 41-54, column 12, lines 15-26).
As per claim 3, Wright teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to select the user offering and the indication of driving behavior of the driver based upon the contextualized driver profile (see at least column 12, lines 27-39).
As per claim 4, Wright teaches wherein the contextualized driver profile includes (i) metrics associated with driving behavior of the driver within the environment in which the driver travelled during the plurality of historical trips, and (ii) models associated with common routes driven by the driver using a vehicle (see at least column 22, lines 41-54, column 12, lines 15-26).
As per claim 5, Wright teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to synthesize the driver profile of the driver and the contextual data by: identifying at least one route travelled by the driver during a subset of the plurality of historical trips as a common route, the plurality of historical trips taken by the driver; modelling, using artificial intelligence, historical travel of the driver along the common route based upon (i) the driver profile, (ii) at least one of current, average, or predicted traffic data along the common route, and (iii) traffic light timing data of traffic lights disposed along the common route, wherein (ii) and (iii) are included in the contextual data; and updating the contextualized driver profile to include the modelled historical travel of the driver (see at least column 22, lines 9-20, column 22, lines 41-54, column 12, lines 15-26).
As per claim 6, Wright teaches wherein the user offering includes the incentive if the recommendation is implemented (non-functional descriptive language) . The limitation is non-functional descriptive language that does not actively recite a function and therefore does not add any meaningful limitations to the scope of the claim. “A claim term is functional when it recites a feature by what it does not what it is" (MPEP 2173.05g). Non-functional descriptive material does not impart a patentable distinction to a claim. Patentable weight will only be given when such descriptive material has a functional relationship to the substrate (MPEP 2111.05).
As per claim 7, Wright teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive the current telematics data from a vehicle computing device associated with a vehicle used by the driver (see at least column 15, line 40-column 16, line 25, column 30, lines 44-51).
Claims 8-20 contain similar limitations as the claims above and therefore are rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ramsey Refai whose telephone number is (313)446-4867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
RAMSEY REFAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/RAMSEY REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights