Reexam Control No. 90/011,252
`
`Attorney Docket No. 12741-32
`
`i.
`
`In the art, the definition of a log is “a record of transaction or activities
`
`that take place on a computer system, comparable to a captain’s log.”
`
`Microsoft Press® Computer and Internet Dictionary, 1991 (defining
`
`“log”).
`But the log has a particular meaning in this claim — it is a record of vehicle
`
`speed that is taking place when time and location are found to be relevant
`for determining a cost of vehicle insurance. Claims 1; see also (col. 8,
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`lines 49-51).
`
`The language of the claim itself indicates that the log of vehicle speed
`must correspond to (meaning accompany) each selected time and location
`data elements that are found to be appropriate for determining a cost of
`
`vehicle insurance, and thus recorded in the database. The American
`
`Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Ed. 1992 (defining
`
`“corresponding”).
`If a log (i.e. the record of speed activities that are monitored on the vehicle
`during the selected time period) does not exist, such as upon an initial
`rendering of the database or if the log were deleted, it must be created.
`Based on the foregoing, the broadest reasonable interpretation one of
`
`ordinary skill would understand the meaning of “said ones including .
`corresponding log of vehicle speed for the time and location” in the
`context of the claim means: a record of recorded speed activities that
`
`.
`
`. a
`
`accompanies each time and location data elements that are found relevant
`for determining a cost of insurance, which if the log of vehicle speed does
`not exist when time and location are found to be relevant for determining a
`
`cost of insurance, the log of vehicle speed is generated.
`
`vi.
`
`Bouchard in view of Kosaka and Black Magic contain no disclosure of a
`
`log or recording time, location, and a corresponding log of vehicle speed
`when it is determined that at least time and location are determined to be
`
`relevant to determining a cost of vehicle insurance.
`
`1.
`
`In 1991, Kosaka’s “vague empirical knowledge” determined risk
`
`evaluation value by processing the output of doppler radar main
`
`unit 30, the speed detector 38, and the main engine rotation rate
`
`detector 43. (pg. 7, col. 1, line 49-col. 2, line 20). The input values
`were used as an input to the fuzzy logic, but were not stored. Id.
`2. Two years later, in 1993, Bouchard discloses evaluating a driver
`
`in real time through classifications and selected profiles.
`
`3.
`
`In Bouchard, block 1801 discloses classifying the driving
`
`environment by ranges of speed. In block 1802, time is classified
`due to risk of accidents. Block 1803 sets forth the profiles that are
`
`Page 000741
`
`

`
`Reexam Control No. 90/011,252
`
`Attorney Docket No. 12741-32
`
`used for the various driving environments (1801) that are selected
`
`by the table shown in Figure 19.
`
`1301
`
`CLASSIFY
`THE DR|VlNG
`ENVIROMENT
`
`CLASSIFY
`THE
`TTME FACTORS
`
`’ TIME OF DAY
`- MORNING NADTR
`- AFTERNOON NADIR
`- OTHER
`' TR¥F LENGTH
`
`- DUTY DAY
`
`ASSESS
`PRGFILES
`
`o THROTTLE
`
`0 HEADWAY
`- CLOSURE
`— DISTANCE
`
`4. One year later, in 1994, Black Magic discloses that insurers are
`
`just learning the benefits of satellite navigation. The electronic
`
`experts offered only prediction and prophecy, but the insurers
`
`regarded black-box technology as science fiction. (pg. 2, see
`
`concluding line).
`
`d. The only basis for interpreting Bouchard, Kosaka, and Black Magic to suggest
`
`recording time, location, and a corresponding log of speed for the time and
`location when it is determined that at least time and location are determined to be
`
`relevant for determining a cost of vehicle insurance or is cited for teaching a
`
`database is the patentee's own disclosure, which simply is not a proper basis for a
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 obviousness rejection. See M.P.E.P. § 2142 ("impermissible
`
`hindsight must be avoided and the legal conclusion [of obviousness] must be
`
`reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the prior art.").
`
`V.
`
`§ 103 Rejection of Claim 6
`
`a. The proposed combination does not teach or suggest analyzing, grouping, and
`
`storing the one or more data elements as group data values in a first memory
`
`related to a predetermined group of elements; and, correlating the group data
`
`values to preset values in a second memory and generating an output data value
`
`based on the correlation wherein the output data value is used to compute an
`
`insurance rating for the vehicle FOR the data collection period.
`
`b. An insurance rating is separate and distinguishable from a cost.
`
`VI.
`
`§ 103 Rejections of the New Dependent Claims
`a. Claim 17
`
`i. The proposed combination does not teach or suggest grouping a selected
`data element of the one or more data elements in the first memory Q
`
`10
`
`Page 000742
`
`

`
`Reexam Control No. 90/011,252
`
`Attorney Docket No. 12741-32
`
`combination with a location of the vehicle associated with the selected
`data element.
`
`b. Claim 18
`
`i. The proposed combination does not teach or suggest grouping a selected
`data element of the one or more data elements in the first memory Q
`
`combination with a time or date associated with the selected data element.
`
`0. Claim 22
`
`i. The proposed combination does not teach or suggest computing the
`insurance rating for the vehicle based on the number of identified
`excessive or sudden acceleration events.
`
`d. Claim 26
`
`i. The proposed combination does not teach or suggest computing the
`insurance rating for the vehicle based on the number of identified
`
`excessive or sudden braking events.
`e. Claim 27
`
`i. The proposed combination does not teach or suggest identifying a
`predetermined speed threshold associated with the location of the vehicle,
`determine that the speed data indicates an occurrence of an excessive
`speed event above the predetermined speed threshold, and computing the
`insurance rating for the vehicle based on the occurrence of the excessive
`
`speed event.
`f. Claim 28
`
`i. The proposed combination does not teach or suggest measuring a time
`duration of the excessive speed event, and computing the insurance rating
`for the vehicle based on the time duration of the excessive speed event.
`
`g. Claim 29
`i. The proposed combination does not teach or suggest extracting speed limit
`data associated with the location of the vehicle from a database,
`
`comparing the speed data to the speed limit data to determine whether the
`speed data indicates an occurrence of an excessive speed event above the
`speed limit data, and recording the speed data in the first memory Q
`response to determining that the speed data indicates an occurrence of an
`excessive speed event above the speed limit data.
`h. Claim 34
`
`i. The proposed combination does not teach or suggest monitoring driving
`route data associated with the vehicle, determining that the driving route
`
`data indicates an occurrence of a high risk driving location event, and
`computing the insurance rating for the vehicle based on the occurrence of
`
`the high risk driving location event.
`i. Claim 41
`
`11
`
`Page 000743
`
`

`
`Reexam Control No. 90/011,252
`
`Attorney Docket No. 12741-32
`
`i. The proposed combination does not teach or suggest using one or more of
`the one or more data elements to determine an actuarial class associated
`
`with the vehicle, and using one or more of the one or more data elements
`
`to determine a surcharge or discount to be applied to a base cost of
`insurance associated with the vehicle.
`
`j. Claim 42
`
`i. The proposed combination does not teach or suggest grouping speed data
`of the Vehicle in combination with a location of the vehicle in a log of
`
`vehicle speed for the location.
`k. Claims 44-50
`
`i. The proposed combination does not teach or suggest determining an
`
`insurance actuarial class based on the monitored driving data.
`1. Claim 66
`
`i. The proposed combination does not teach or suggest deriving road
`
`condition data, and processing the road condition data to compute the
`
`insurance rating for the vehicle.
`In. Claim 67
`
`i. The proposed combination does not teach or suggest deriving traffic
`
`condition data, and processing the traffic condition data to compute the
`
`insurance rating for the vehicle.
`
`12
`
`Page 000744
`
`

`
`Office, Commissioner for Patents, via the EFS pursuant to 37 CFR §1.8 on the below dale: _
`
`Date: March 25 2011
`
`Name: James A. Collins
`
`CERTIFICATE OF EFS FILING UNDER 37 CFR §1.8
`I hereby certify that this correspondence is being electronically transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`,
`_
`Signature: Names A. Collinsl
`
`B RI N K S
`H 0 F E R
`
`G I L S 0 N
`
`8. L I 0 N E
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Ex Parte Robert John McMillan et al.
`Reexam of:
`
`Reexam Appln. 90/011,252
`No.:
`
`Examiner: Karin M. Reichle
`
`Filed:
`
`For:
`
`September 22, 2010
`
`MOTOR VEHICLE MONITORING SYSTEM
`FOR DETERMINING A COST OF INSURANCE
`
`Art Unit:
`
`3992
`
`Conf. No.2 4116
`
`
`
` Attorne Docket No.: 12741-32
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing INTERVIEW AGENDA, was served this March
`25, 2011 by First Class United States Mail, postage prepaid, on:
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`One International Place
`
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`March 25, 2011
`Date
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/James A. Collinsl
`James A. Collins (Reg. No. 43,557)
`
`BRINKS
`HOFER
`GILSON
`&L|ONE
`
`BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE
`NBC Tower— Suite 3600, 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Chicago, IL 60611-5599
`
`Page 000745
`
`

`
`Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
`
`Application Number:
`
`90011252
`
`International Application Number:
`
`Confirmation Number:
`
`4116
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`MOTOR VEHICLE MONITORING SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING A COST OF
`INSURANCE
`
`Customer Number:
`
`10999
`
`Filer:
`
`James A. Collins/Maggie Pieczonka
`
`Receipt Date:
`
`Filing Date:
`
`25-MAR-2011
`
`22—SEP—201 0
`
`Payment information:
`
`File Listing:
`
`Document
`
`.
`
`.
`
`File Size(Bytes)/
`
`Multi
`
`Pages
`
`9623
`
`Miscellaneous Incoming Letter
`
`transforagenda.PDF
`
`eaf5d758c975df97d3bd70fI b9Baf55c8c38
`
`Information:
`
`Page 000746
`
`

`
`Reexam Miscellaneous Incoming Letter
`
`agenda.PDF
`
`62341 1
`
`ai00f77d5093492200l7l;16ll559e3S88aa4
`el7ad
`
`Warnings:
`Information:
`
`Reexam Certificate of Service
`
`certservagenda.PDF
`
`80630a4f‘2d(3cl;:0d681(5022-1371 all a6e969
`5597
`
`This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
`Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
`
`New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111
`Ifa new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see 37 CFR
`1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown on this
`Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.
`
`National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371
`Ifa timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
`U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DOIEOI903 indicating acceptance of the application as a
`national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
`
`New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
`Ifa new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
`an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1810), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and ofthe International Filing Date (Form PCT/R0/105) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the international filing date of
`the application.
`
`Page 000747
`
`

`
` UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO. FIRST NAMED 1NVEN'1‘0R_
`'
`90/011,252
`09/22/2010
`6,064,970
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`12741-32
`
`CONFIRMATION N0.
`4116
`
`10999
`
`7590
`
`03/07/2011
`
`Progressive Casualty/BHGL
`PO. Box 10395
`Chicago, IL 60610
`
`DATE MAILED: 03/07/2011
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03)
`
`Page 000748
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`THIRD PARTY REQUESTER‘S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`PATENT DOCKETING 39/41
`ONE INTERNATIONAL PLACE
`BOSTON, MA 02110-2624
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patents and Trademark Office
`P.O.Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www.usplo.gov
`
`., Jul FD
`Dye:
`'
`l’:..“P. L: 7 2011
`
`(;l-MRALRFF"t5».m»:=m;lu:
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. : 90011252
`PATENT NO. 1 6064970
`
`ART UNIT 2 3993
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from oceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination pr
`
`reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a
`Where this copy is supplied after the
`ion requester will be
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexaminat
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(9)).
`
`Page 000749
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Control No.
`90/011,252
`
`Examiner
`Karin M. Reichle
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`6,064,970
`
`Art Unit
`3992
`
`
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`
`bE] This action is made FINAL.
`a|Z Responsive to the communication(s) filed on 26 January 2011 .
`CIZ A statement under 37 CFR 1.530 has not been received from the patent owner.
`
`A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire 1 month(s) from the mailing date of this letter.
`Failure to respond within the period for response will result in termination of the proceeding and issuance of an ex parte reexamination
`certificate in accordance with this action. 37 CFR 1.550(d). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`If the period for response specified above is less than thirty (30) days. a response within the statutory minimum of thirty (30) days
`will be considered timely.
`
`Part I
`
`THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. El Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892.
`3.
`[1 Interview Summary, PTO-474.
`
`
`. '2. X Information Disclosure Statement,PTO/SB/08. 4. E]
` Part II SUMMARY OF ACTION
`
`1a.
`
`
`
`
`Claims 1-73 are subject to reexamination.
`Claims __ are not subject to reexamination.
`
`IZIIIIIZEIEIEIEI
`
`°°~I.<'='>‘s3~.4>s»>i~>sr
`
`1
`
`'
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims __ have been canceled in the present reexamination proceeding.
`
`Claims __ are patentable and/or confirmed.
`Claims 1 are rejected.
`I
`Claims _: are objected to.
`
`The drawings, filed on __ are acceptable.
`. I] The proposed drawing correction, filed on__has been (7a)E] approved (7b)E] disapproved.
`
`.
`
`I:] Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`a)I] All b)I] Some‘ c)l:| None
`
`of the certified copies have
`
`1|] been received.
`
`2I___] not been received.
`
`3I:I been filed in Application No. __
`
`4I:I been filed in reexamination Control No. __
`
`5I:I been received by the International Bureau in PCT application No. _
`" See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9. [I Since the proceeding appears to be in condition for issuance of an ex parte reexamination certificate except for formal
`matters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle. 1935 C.D.
`\
`11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`
`
`_ 10. El Other:
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office '
`PTOL—466 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Part of Paper No. 20110301
`
`Page 000750
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`'
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Introduction
`
`1. This Office Action addresses the ex parte reexamination of all claims 1-73 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,064,970 issued to McMillan et al for which a Substantial New Question of
`
`Patentability has been deemed to exist. The status of the claims is as follows:
`
`Claims 1-73 are rejected.
`
`Patents, Non-Patent Literature, Other Evidence
`
`Patents
`
`- Japanese Patent Publication No. JP-A-4/182868, filed on November 19, 1990 and
`published on June 30, 1992, to Kosaka (“Kosaka”) and Certified English-Language Translation,
`the translation of which is hereinafter referred to as ‘868 or Kosaka.
`
`- U.S. Patent No. 5,465,079, filed on August 13, 1993 and issued on November 7, 1995,
`to Bouchard et al. (“Bouchard”), hereinafter referred to as ‘079 or Bouchard.
`
`Non-Patent Literature
`
`- “An Interest in Black Magic - Motor Technology” published on January 1, 1994 in
`Insurance Age magazine (“Black Magic”), hereinafter referred to as Black.
`
`Page 000751
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim Rejections-Original Patent Claims
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of35 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 —
`
`(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or
`on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
`
`(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed
`
`in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for
`
`patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an
`
`intemational application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this
`
`subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United
`
`States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
`
`3. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Kosaka JP
`
`‘868, citations infra referring to the English translation thereof.
`
`The reference to Kosaka (‘868) includes an issue date more than one year prior to the
`
`effective filing date (January 29, 1996) of the patent (‘970) requested for reexamination and thus
`
`is available as prior art under 35 USC 102(b) and 35 USC 103.
`
`Claim 4:
`
`4. A method of insuring a vehicle operator for a selected period based upon operator
`driving characteristics during the period,
`
`Note the ‘97O Patent at col. 6, lines 17-19 with regard to the terminology “vehicle”, i.e.
`
`“operator controlled motor vehicles normally requiring insurance” including but not limited to
`
`Page 000752
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`1
`
`Page 4
`
`automobiles. The terminology “operator driving characteristics” is considered to refer back to “a
`
`vehicle operator” and the terminology “the period” is considered to refer back to “a selected
`
`period”. See ‘868 at, e.g., Figures 1, 5, and 9, the title, claims 1-17, page 2, the paragraph
`
`bridging cols. 1-2, i.e. “The present invention relates to a risk evaluation device for evaluating
`
`risk in moving bodies (vehicles) or insurance customers, and an insurance premium
`
`determination device that employs this risk evaluation device.", page 2, col. 2, last full
`
`paragraph, i.e. ". . .an objective of the invention is to provide an insurance premium
`
`determination device whereby insurance premiums can be increased or decreased by
`
`continually determining insurance premium changes through the detection of states that
`
`lead to risk in the insurance customer”, page 3, col. 1, lines 12-13, i.e. “The subject being
`
`evaluated for risk is a moving body that is being operated or the operator thereof. . .”, col. 3,
`
`fifth from last paragraph, i.e. “The invention also has the aforementioned risk evaluation device
`
`and an insurance premium change determination means that determines the insurance
`
`premium change for the insurance customer from the risk evaluation value, taking the subject
`
`of risk evaluation as the insurance customer.”, page 4, lines 4-8, i.e. “By this means, it is
`
`possible to determine insurance premiums corresponding to a risk evaluation value that
`
`changes in accordance with the internal state or external state of the subject being evaluated
`
`for risk, which may vary by the hour or daily”, page 4, col. 1, fifth full paragraph, i.e. “In
`
`Claims (14) and (15), detection of a state that contributes to insurance customer risk and
`
`evaluation of risk are carried out in real time and a determination of the change in
`
`insurance premium is also carried out in real time”, page 6, col. 1., last full paragraph, i.e.
`
`“Detection of states contributing to risk and calculation of risk evaluation values by fuzzy logic
`
`Page 000753
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/01 1,252
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`1
`
`Page 5
`
`were carried out in real time using an external sensor and internal sensor, but the risk
`
`evaluation values also may be determined subsequently, or the change in insurance premium
`
`may be calculated subsequently from the determined risk evaluation values”, page 4, col. 2,
`
`second full paragraph and Figure 1, i.e. “The means for detecting a state of the insurance
`
`customer or subject of risk evaluation that contributes to risk is an external sensor 1 and an
`
`internal sensor 2.”, page 6, col. 2, second full paragraph, i.e. “Fig. 5 is a configuration diagram of
`
`a device that employs an insurance premium determination system in a risk evaluation device
`
`installed in a vehicle (automobile).”, page 7, col. 1, first full paragraph, i.e. “Moreover, in this
`
`example of embodiment, the detection data from the control operation detection part 44 is also
`
`used as a fuzzy input value. The control operation detection part 44 detects clearly intentional
`
`operations, for example, when there is a deviation in the rudder operation mechanism that is at
`
`or above a set value.”, page 7, the paragraph bridging cols. 1-2, i.e. “In addition, in this example
`
`of embodiment, an insurance premium determination system is used in addition to risk
`
`evaluation, which allows risk evaluations that change from hour to hour during travel to be
`
`reflected in the insurance premium.”, and page 8, col. 2-page 9, col. 1, i.e. “Moreover, because
`
`of combination with an insurance premium determination system, it is possible to make
`
`settlements by erasing the amount of the insurance premium change in accordance with risk
`
`that varies hourly.‘ Consequently, a fairer insurance system can be constructed in contrast to
`
`conventional casualty insurance clerical work.” and “In the invention, by using a risk evaluation
`
`device that has a risk evaluation means that evaluates risk along with a means for determining
`
`changes in insurance premiums, insurance premiums can be determined in accordance with
`
`the degree of risk in subjects of risk evaluation which changes over time.” (Emphasis supra
`
`Page 000754
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`added.) Therefore, ‘868 teaches a method of insuring a vehicle operator, e.g. determining an
`
`insurance premium for an insurance customer operating a moving body/vehicle, for a selected
`
`period, c. g. in real time, hourly, daily, based upon operator driving characteristics during the
`
`period, e.g. a state that contributes to risk or an intentional operation of the customer.
`
`comprising, steps of:
`
`generating an initial operator profile;
`
`Note the claim does not set forth what and/or whom is generating such profile. Note also
`
`the “operator” claimed in this step is considered to refer back to the “vehicle operator” set forth '
`
`in the preamble.
`
`As set forth MPEP 2258, I., G, “During reexamination, claims are given the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are
`
`not read into the claims (In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). The
`
`specification of the '970 Patent, other than the claims, never utilizes the term "initial operator
`profile". The '970 Patent does describe, i.e., an “insurer profile” (abstract, col. 4, line 6, ),
`“gathering relevant historical data from a person interview with the applicant for the insurance
`
`and referencing the applicant’s motor vehicle driving record” (col. 1, lines 17-21), “an actuarial
`
`profile” (col. 3, lines 23), “ to generate actuarial classes and operator profiles relative thereto
`
`based upon actual driving characteristics of the vehicle and driver, as represented by the
`
`I monitored and recorded data elements” (col. 5, lines 28-31), and “[at] step 212, all the
`
`information comprising the insured profile, which is already maintained and stored in other
`
`insurance files. . .This insured profile includes the information about coverages including limits
`
`Page 000755
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/O1 1,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`and deductibles, which are necessary for establishing the appropriate cost of insurance for
`
`the subject insured” (col. 10, lines 33-39). Furthermore, see ‘868 at, e.g., claims 7 and 10, i.e.
`
`“a prepayment amount”, claim 9, i.e. “the insurance premium change”, page 4, col. 2, second
`
`full paragraph, i.e. “The fuzzy memory 4 stores risk evaluation values determined when fiizzy
`
`logic has been carried out in advance offline. The premium calculation part 6 performs temporal
`
`integration and computation of risk evaluation values, and thereby calculates insurance
`
`premiums (variable premiums pending special contract for the insurance agreement)”, and
`
`page 7, col. 1, i.e. “The output of the risk evaluation unit 42 is output to. .,.monetary amount file
`
`part 46... The monetary amount file part 46 has a memory that stores the prepayment
`
`balance. This monetary amount file part 46 erases, from the prepayment money balance, the
`
`insurance premium change corresponding to the riskevaluation value output from the risk
`
`evaluation unit 42.” (Emphasis supra added.) Therefore, since ‘868 provides for generating
`
`initial files/information with respect to the operator/the insuring thereof, e.g., ‘868 teaches a
`
`monetary amount file/stored initially payed insurance premium and/or “the insurance
`
`agreement” (emphasis added)), similar to that described by the ‘970 Patent, it is the Examiner’s
`
`position that ‘868 “generat[es] an initial operator profile” as required by claim 4.
`
`monitoring operator driving characteristics during the selected period;
`
`The “operator driving characteristics” claimed in this step are considered to refer back to
`
`those set forth in the preamble. Noted that the claim does not set forth what and/or who is
`
`performing such monitoring.
`
`Page 000756
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`'
`
`Page 8
`
`See ‘868 at, e.g., page 4, col. 1, fifth full paragraph, i.e. “In Claims (14) and (15),
`
`detection of a state that contributes to insurance customer risk and evaluation of risk are
`
`carried out in real time and a determination of the change in insurance premium is also
`
`carried out in real time”, page 6, col. 1., last full paragraph, i.e. “Detection of states
`
`contributing to risk and calculation of risk evaluation values by fuzzy logic were carried out in
`
`real time using an external sensor and internal sensor, but the risk evaluation values also may
`
`be determined subsequently, or the change in insurance premium may be calculated subsequently
`
`from the determined risk evaluation values”, page 4, col. 2, second full paragraph and Figure 1,
`
`i.e. “The means for detecting a state of the insurance customer or subject of risk evaluation
`
`that contributes to risk is an external sensor 1 and an internal sensor 2.”, page 6, col. 2, second
`
`full paragraph, i.e. “Fig. 5 is a configuration diagram of a device that employs an insurance
`
`premium determination system in a risk evaluation device installed in a vehicle
`
`(automobile).”, page 7, col. 1, first full paragraph, i.e. “Moreover, in this example of
`
`embodiment, the detection data from the control operation detection part 44 is also used as a
`
`fuzzy input value. The control operation detection part 44 detects clearly intentional
`
`operations, for example, when there is a deviation in the rudder operation mechanism that is at
`
`or above a set value.”, page 7, the paragraph bridging cols. 1-2 and Figures 5 and 9, i.e. “In the
`
`above configuration, states in the operator or moving body used as the subject of risk
`
`evaluation which contribute to risk arerespectively detected by the doppler radar main unit
`
`30, the speed detector 38, the main engine rotation rate detector 43, and the control operation
`detection part 44.” and “In addition, in this examplelofembodiment, an insurance premium r
`
`determination system is used in addition to risk evaluation, which allows risk evaluations that
`
`Page 000757
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`change from hour to hour during travel to be reflected in the insurance premium”, and
`
`page 8, col. 2—page 9, col. 1, i.e. “Moreover, because of combination with an insurance premium
`
`determination system, it is possible to make settlements by erasing the amount of the insurance
`
`premium change in accordance with risk that varies hourly. Consequently, a fairer insurance
`
`system can be constructed in contrast to conventional casualty insurance clerical work.” and “In
`
`the invention, by using a risk evaluation device that has a risk evaluation means that
`
`evaluates risk along with a means for determining changes in insurance premiums,
`
`insurance premiums can be determined in accordance with the degree of risk in subjects of
`
`risk evaluation which changes over time.” (Emphasis supra added.) Therefore, ‘868 teaches
`
`monitoring operator driving characteristics, i.e. a state that contributes to risk or intentional
`
`operation of the customer/vehicle operator, during the selected period, i.e. real time, hourly,
`
`daily.
`
`and deciding a cost of vehicle insurance for the period based upon the operating
`characteristics monitored in that period.
`
`The “operati_ng characteristics” claimed in this step are considered to refer to the
`
`“operator driving characteristics” claimed supra and the period claimed in this step is considered
`
`to refer to the previously claimed “selected period”. (Emphasis added) Note the claim does not
`
`set forth what and/or whom is performing this decision.
`
`This step also uses the claim language ‘‘_a cost of vehicle insurance” (Emphasis added).
`
`See ‘970 Patent at, e.g., the abstract, i.e. “A final cost is produced from the base costs and the
`
`surcharges or discounts”, col. 4, lines 55-56, i.e. “the ultimate cost oftheir vehicle insurance”,
`
`col. 3, lines 50-53, i.e. “the cost of coverage”, col. 4, lines 8-10, i.e. “The total cost of insurance
`
`Page 000758
`
`

`
`Application/Conuol Number: 90/01 1,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`obtained from combining the base cost and surcharges and discounts is produced as a final cost
`
`to the operator”, claim 10, i.e. “adjusted insurance cost”, and claims 13-15, i.e. “adjusted
`
`underwriting cost”. Note also, e.g., col. 1, lines 22-24, i.e. “Such data results in a classification
`
`of the applicant to a broad actuarial class for which insurance rates are assigned based upon the
`
`empirical experience of the insurer.”, col. 2, lines 13-15, i.e. “a different premium being
`
`charged’; (Note “premium” can included a pure premium, i.e. a pure cost ofprotection, or a
`
`gross premium, i.e. the pure premium plus insurance company added costs/overhead)‘, col. 5,
`
`lines 34-40, i.e. “The subject new insurance rating system retrospectively adjusts and
`
`prospectively sets premiums”, col. 6, lines 19-24, i.e. “a vehicle user is charged for insurance”,
`
`and claim 2, i.e. “an insurance charge for the vehicle operation”. (Emphasis supra added)
`
`Therefore, and in light of MPEP 2258 supra, such claim language “a cost of insurance”, absent
`language more specifically describing such ;‘cost”, is interpreted as alone or some or all cost(s)
`
`associated with insurance of the vehicle, e.g. a cost to the insured and/or insurer/underwriter
`
`associated with the insurance.
`
`4 See ‘868 at, e.g., the title, claims 1-17, page 2, the paragraph bridging cols. 1-2, i.e. “The
`present invention relates to a risk evaluation device for evaluating risk in moving bodies
`
`(vehicles) ‘or insurance customers, and an insurance premium determination device that
`
`employs this risk evaluation d