throbber
the claim language with the specification language, Applicant notes that “[t]here is no
`
`requirement that the words in the claim must match those used in the specification disclosure.”
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2l73.05(e). The Office Action also highlights the use in the claim of“assigning,”
`
`“predetermined,” and “processor,” but these terms are not recited in amended claim 46.
`
`Therefore, in view of the amendment of claim 46, Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal
`
`ofthis rejection.
`
`''
`
`Claim 47
`
`Claim 47 supplements the method steps of claim 6 by reciting the additional steps of(l)
`
`processing speed data associated with the vehicle based on the one or more data elements, and
`
`(2) determining an insurance actuarial class based on the speed data. The content of claim 47 is
`
`clear from the claim language itself and the portions ofthe specification cited as support for this
`
`claim in Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment filed January 26, 201 1. Regarding the Office
`
`Action’s comparison ofthe claim language with the specification language, Applicant notes that
`
`“[t]here is no requirement that the words in the claim must match those used in the specification
`
`disclosure.” M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(e). The Office Action also highlights the use in the claim of
`
`“the at least one,” “assigning,” “predetermined,” and “processor,” but these terms are not recited
`
`in amended claim 47. Therefore, in view ofthe amendment of claim 47, Applicants respectfully
`
`request the withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`I
`
`Claim 48
`
`Claim 48 supplements the method steps of claim 6 by reciting the additional steps of (1)
`
`determining speed limit observation data associated with the vehicle based on at least one of the
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/011,252
`U.S. Patent 6,064,970
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 12741-32
`Page 92 of 135
`
`Page 000592
`
`

`
`one or more data elements, and (2) determining an insurance actuarial class based on the speed
`
`limit observation data. The content of claim 48 is clear from the claim language itself and the
`
`portions of the specification cited as support for this claim in Applicants’ Preliminary
`
`Amendment filed January 26, 201 1. Regarding the Office Action’s comparison of the claim
`
`language with the specification language, Applicant notes that “[t]here is no requirement that the
`
`words in the claim must match those used in the specification disclosure.” M.P.E.P. §
`
`2l73.05(e). The Office Action also highlights the use in the claim of“assigning” and
`
`“processor,” but these terms are not recited in amended claim 48. Therefore, in View of the
`
`amendment of claim 48, Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`'
`
`Claim 49
`
`Claim 49 supplements the method steps of claim 6 by reciting the additional steps of (1)
`
`determining acceleration data associated with the vehicle based on at least one ofthe one or more
`
`data elements, and (2) determining an insurance actuarial class based on the acceleration data.
`
`The content of claim 49 is clear from the claim language itself and the portions of the
`
`specification cited as support for this claim in Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment filed January
`
`26, 201 1. Regarding the Office Action’s comparison ofthe claim language with the
`
`specification language, Applicant notes that “[t]here is no requirement that the words in the
`
`claim must match those used in the specification disclosure.” M.P.E.P. § 2l73.05(e). The Office
`
`Action also highlights the use in the claim of “calculating a rate,” “assigning” and “processor,”
`
`but these terms are not recited in amended claim 49. Therefore, in view of the amendment of
`
`claim 49, Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/011,252
`U.S. Patent 6,064,970
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 12741-32
`Page 93 of 135
`
`Page 000593
`
`

`
`I
`
`Claim 50
`
`Claim 50 supplements the method steps of claim 6 by reciting the additional steps of (1)
`
`determining braking data associated with the vehicle based on at least one of the one or more
`
`data elements, and (2) determining an insurance actuarial class based on the braking data. The
`
`content of claim 50 is clear from the claim language itself and the portions of the specification
`
`cited as support for this claim in Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment filed January 26, 2011.
`
`Regarding the Office Action’s comparison of the claim language with the specification language,
`
`Applicant notes that “[t]here is no requirement that the words in the claim must match those used
`
`in the specification disclosure.” M.P.E.P. § 2l73.05(e). The Office Action also highlights the
`
`use in the claim of “calculating a rate,” “assigning” and “processor,” but these terms are not
`
`recited in amended claim 50. Therefore, in view of the amendment of claim 50, Applicants
`
`respectfully request the withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`I
`
`Claim 51
`
`Claim 51 further defines the “extracting” step of claim 6. Claim 6 recites that the one or
`
`more data elements are extracted from at least one sensor. Claim 51 adds that the “extracting”
`
`described in claim 6 is performed by an on-board computer, as is clear from the claim language
`
`itself and the portions of the specification cited as support for this claim in Applicants’
`
`Preliminary Amendment filed January 26, 20] 1. Regarding the Office Action’s comparison of
`
`the claim language with the specification language, Applicant notes that “[t]here is no
`
`requirement that the words in the claim must match those used in the specification disclosure.”
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2l73.05(e). Therefore, in view ofthe amendment ofclaim 51, Applicants
`
`respectfully request the withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/011,252
`U.S. Patent 6,064,970
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 12741-32
`Page 94 of 135
`
`Page 000594
`
`

`
`'
`
`Claim 52
`
`Claim 52 has been amended to recite that the step of extracting of claim 6 comprises
`
`communicating one or more gw data elements to a computer through an on—board diagnostics
`
`(OBD) connector of the vehicle, as suggested by the Office Action. Therefore, in View of the
`
`amendment of claim 52, Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`I
`
`Claim 53
`
`Claim 53 has been amended to clarify that the at least one sensor of claim 6 comprises
`
`the in—vehicle sensor described in claim 53. The Office Action also highlights the use in the
`
`claim of“a physical operation,” but this term is not recited in amended claim 53. Therefore, in
`
`view ofthe amendment ofclaim 53, Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal ofthis
`
`rejection.
`
`I
`
`Claim 54
`
`Claim 54 has been amended to clarify that the at least one sensor ofclaim 6 (which may
`
`be one sensor or more than one sensor) comprises the power train sensor, the in—vehicle electrical
`
`sensor, and the in-vehicle body sensor described in claim 54. Claim 54 has also been amended
`
`to clarify that the one or more data elements of claim 6 (which may be one data element or more
`
`than one data element) comprises the first data element, the second data element, and the third
`
`data element described in claim 54. Therefore, in view of the amendment of claim 54,
`
`Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/011,252
`U.S. Patent 6,064,970
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 12741-32
`Page 95 of 135
`
`Page 000595
`
`

`
`I
`
`Claim 55
`
`Claim 55 supplements the method steps ofclaim 6 by reciting the additional steps of(l)
`
`analyzing the one or more data elements to identify a trigger event requiring additional action,
`
`and (2) transmitting a location of the vehicle by an on-board computer to a remote control center
`
`in response to determining that the one or more data elements comprise the trigger event. The
`
`content of claim 55 is clear from the claim language itself and the portions of the specification
`
`cited as support for this claim in Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment filed January 26, 201 1.
`
`Regarding the Office Action’s comparison of the claim language with the specification language,
`
`Applicant notes that “[t]here is no requirement that the words in the claim must match those used
`
`in the specification disclosure.” M.P.E.P. § 21 73.05(e). The Office Action also highlights the
`
`use in the claim of “to determine whether,” but this term is not recited in amended claim 55.
`
`Therefore, in view of the amendment of claim 55, Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal
`
`ofthis rejection.
`
`I
`
`Claim 56
`
`Claim 56 supplements the method steps of claim 6 by reciting the additional steps of(1)
`
`detecting a non-use ofturn signals by a driver ofthe vehicle based on the one or more data
`
`elements, (2) recording the detected non-use of the turn signals by the driver in computer
`
`memory, and (3) computing an insurance surcharge for the vehicle based on the detected non-use
`
`of the turn signals by the driver. The content of claim 56 is clear from the claim language itself
`
`and the portions of the specification cited as support for this claim in Applicants’ Preliminary
`
`Amendment filed January 26, 2011. Regarding the Office Action’s comparison ofthe claim
`
`language with the specification language, Applicant notes that “[t]here is no requirement that the
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/011,252
`U.S. Patent 6,064,970
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 12741-32
`Page 96 of 135
`
`Page 000596
`
`

`
`words in the claim must match those used in the specification disclosure.” M.P.E.P. §
`
`2173.05(e). The Office Action also highlights the use in the claim of “processor,” but this term
`
`is not recited in amended claim 56. Therefore, in View of the amendment of claim 56,
`
`Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`I
`
`Claim 57
`
`Claim 57 supplements the method steps ofclaim 6 by reciting the additional steps of(l)
`
`detecting an application of an anti-lock braking system of the vehicle based on the one or more
`
`data elements extracted from the at least one sensor, (2) recording the detected anti-lock braking
`
`system application in computer memory, and (3) computing an insurance surcharge for the
`
`vehicle based on the detected anti-lock braking system application. The content of claim 57 is
`
`clear from the claim language itself and the portions of the specification cited as support for this
`
`claim in Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment filed January 26, 201 1. Regarding the Office
`
`Action’s comparison ofthe claim language with the specification language, Applicant notes that
`
`“[t]here is no requirement that the words in the claim must match those used in the specification
`
`disclosure.” M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(e). The Office Action also highlights the use in the claim of
`
`“processor,” but this term is not recited in amended claim 57. Therefore, in view of the
`
`amendment of claim 57, Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`I
`
`Claim 58
`
`Claim 58 supplements the method steps ofclaim 6 by reciting the additional steps of(l)
`
`monitoring the one or more data elements for a predetermined incident condition, (2) remaining
`
`in a data collection loop in response to determining that the one or more data elements fail to
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/011,252
`U.S. Patent 6,064,970
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 12741-32
`Page 97 of 135
`
`Page 000597
`
`

`
`meet the predetermined incident condition, and (3) recording a snapshot of the one or more data
`
`elements in response to determining that the one or more data elements meet the predetermined
`
`incident condition. The content of claim 58 is clear from the claim language itself and the
`
`portions of the specification cited as support for this claim in Applicants’ Preliminary
`
`Amendment filed January 26, 2011. Regarding the Office Action’s comparison of the claim
`
`language with the specification language, Applicant notes that “[t]here is no requirement that the
`
`words in the claim must match those used in the specification disclosure.” M.P.E.P. §
`
`2l73.05(e). Therefore, Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`I
`
`Claim 59
`
`Claim 59 supplements the method steps of claim 6 by reciting the additional steps of (l)
`
`acquiring a vehicle sensor record file associated with the vehicle by a central billing system
`
`remote from the vehicle, (2) acquiring a trigger event response file associated with the vehicle by
`
`the central billing system, and (3) consolidating the vehicle sensor record file with the trigger
`
`event response file into a consolidated activity file by the central billing system. The content of
`
`claim 59 is clear from the claim language itselfand the portions ofthe specification cited as
`
`support for this claim in Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment filed January 26, 201 1. Regarding
`
`the Office Action’s comparison of the claim language with the specification language, Applicant
`
`notes that “[t]here is no requirement that the words in the claim must match those used in the
`
`specification disclosure.” M.P.E.P. § 2l73.05(e). The Office Action also highlights the use in
`
`the claim of “computer” and “usage data,” but these terms are not recited in amended claim 59.
`
`Therefore, in view of the amendment of claim 59, Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal
`
`of this rejection.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/011,252
`U.S. Patent 6,064,970
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 12741-32
`Page 98 of 135
`
`Page 000598
`
`

`
`'
`
`Claim 60
`
`Claim 60 supplements the method steps of claims 6 and 59 by reciting the additional
`
`steps of (1) processing, by the central billing system, the consolidated activity file and an insured
`
`profile associated with the vehicle against an insurance surcharge or discount algorithm file, and
`
`(2) adjusting available insurance surcharges or discounts for the vehicle based on usage patterns
`
`reflected in the consolidated activity file. The content of claim 60 is clear from the claim
`
`language itself and the portions of the specification cited as support for this claim in Applicants’
`
`Preliminary Amendment filed January 26, 201 1. Regarding the Office Action’s comparison of
`
`the claim language with the specification language, Applicant notes that “[t]here is no
`
`requirement that the words in the claim must match those used in the specification disclosure.”
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(e). The Office Action also highlights the use in the claim of“computer” and
`
`“usage data,” but these terms are not recited in amended claim 60. Therefore, in view of the
`
`amendment of claim 60, Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`I
`
`Claim 61
`
`Claim 61 supplements the method steps of claim 6 by reciting the additional step of
`
`setting an insurance cost or an insurance premium associated with the vehicle based on the
`
`insurance rating. The content of claim 61 is clear from the claim language itself and the portions
`
`of the specification cited as support for this claim in Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment filed
`
`January 26, 201 1. F uithermore, “[t]here is no requirement that the words in the claim must
`
`match those used in the specification disclosure” (M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(e)), and the “[b]readth ofa
`
`claim is not to be equated with indefiniteness” (M.P.E.P. § 2173.04). The Office Action also
`
`highlights the use in the claim of“processor,” but this term is not recited in amended claim 61.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/01 1,252
`U.S. Patent 6,064,970
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 12741-32
`Page 99 of 135
`
`Page 000599
`
`

`
`Therefore, in view ofthe amendment of claim 61, Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal
`
`ofthis rejection.
`
`I
`
`Claim 62
`
`Claim 62 supplements the method steps ofclaim 6 by reciting the additional step of
`
`generating an insurance cost based on the insurance rating for the vehicle for the data collection
`
`period, where the preset values comprise a safety standard value or other actuarial standard
`
`Value. The content ofclaim 62 is clear from the claim language itself and the portions ofthe
`
`specification cited as support for this claim in Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment filed January
`
`26, 201 1. Regarding the Office Action’s concerns regarding antecedent basis on page 149 ofthe
`
`Office Action, Applicants note that “th_e_ insurance rating for the vehicle for the data collection
`
`period” of claim 62 refers back to “Q insurance rating for the vehicle FOR the data collection
`
`period” ofclaim 6. Furthermore, “[t]here is no requirement that the words in the claim must
`
`match those used in the specification disclosure” (M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(e)), and the “[b]readth ofa
`
`claim is not to be equated with indefiniteness” (M.P.E.P. § 2173.04). Therefore, Applicants
`
`respectfully request the withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`"
`
`Claim 63
`
`Claim 63 supplements the method steps of claims 6 and 62 by reciting the additional step
`
`of comparing a plurality of data elements to the safety standard value or the actuarial standard
`
`value to generate the insurance cost. The content of claim 63 is clear from the claim language
`
`itself and the portions ofthe specification cited as support for this claim in Applicants’
`
`Preliminary Amendment filed January 26, 2011. Regarding the Office Action’s comparison of
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/01 1,252
`U.S. Patent 6,064,970
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 12741-32
`Page 100 of 135
`
`Page 000600
`
`

`
`the claim language with the specification language, Applicant notes that “[t]here is no
`
`requirement that the words in the claim must match those used in the specification disclosure.”
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2l73.05(e). Therefore, in view ofthe amendment of claim 63, Applicants
`
`respectfully request the withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`I
`
`Claim 64
`
`Claim 64 has been amended to recite that the insurance cost i_s for a prospective or
`
`retrospective basis. Therefore, in view of the amendment of claim 64, Applicants respectfully
`
`request the withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`I
`
`Claim 65
`
`Claim 65 supplements the method steps ofclaim 6 by reciting the additional step of
`
`generating an insurance cost based on the insurance rating for the Vehicle for the data collection
`
`period, where the preset values comprise a safety standard value or other actuarial standard
`
`value. The content ofclaim 65 is clear from the claim language itself and the portions ofthe
`
`specification cited as support for this claim in Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment filed January
`
`26, 201 1. Regarding the Office Action’s questions on whether the two profiles are “one and the
`
`same,” the answer is that they are different and differ to the extent one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would interpret the two different phrases in view of the teachings of the specification. See, also
`
`the descrzption ofoperator profile and insuredprofile in claims 4 and 5. Regarding the Office
`
`Action’s comparison of the claim language with the specification language, Applicant notes that
`
`“[t]here is no requirement that the words in the claim must match those used in the specification
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/011,252
`U.S. Patent 6,064,970
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 12741-32
`Page 101 of 135
`
`Page 000601
`
`

`
`disclosure.” M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(e). Therefore, Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal
`
`of this rejection.
`
`I
`
`Claim 66
`
`Claim 66 supplements the method steps ofclaim 6 by reciting the additional steps of(1)
`
`deriving road condition data, and (2) processing the road condition data to compute the insurance
`
`rating for the vehicle. The content ofclaim 66 is clear from the claim language itselfand the
`
`portions of the specification cited as support for this claim in Applicants’ Preliminary
`
`Amendment filed January 26, 2011. Regarding the Office Action’s comparison ofthe claim
`
`language with the specification language, Applicant notes that “[t]here is no requirement that the
`
`words in the claim must match those used in the specification disclosure.” M.P.E.P. §
`
`2 l73.05(e). The Office Action also highlights the use in the claim of“identifying,” “associated
`
`with a path,” and “processor,” but these terms are not recited in amended claim 66. Therefore, in
`
`view ofthe amendment of claim 66, Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal ofthis
`
`rejection.
`
`'
`
`Claim 67
`
`Claim 67 supplements the method steps of claim 6 by reciting the additional steps of (1)
`
`deriving traffic condition data, and (2) processing the traffic condition data to compute the
`
`insurance rating for the vehicle. The content of claim 67 is clear from the claim language itself
`
`and the portions of the specification cited as support for this claim in Applicants’ Preliminary
`
`Amendment filed January 26, 201 1. Regarding the Office Action’s comparison of the claim
`
`language with the specification language, Applicant notes that “[t]here is no requirement that the
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/011,252
`U.S. Patent 6,064,970
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 12741-32
`Page 102 of 135
`
`Page 000602
`
`

`
`words in the claim must match those used in the specification disclosure.” M.P.E.P. §
`
`21 73.05(e). The Office Action also highlights the use in the claim of“identifying,” “associated
`
`with a path,” and “processor,” but these terms are not recited in amended claim 67. Therefore, in
`
`View of the amendment of claim 67, Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal of this
`
`rejection.
`
`I
`
`Claim 68
`
`Claim 68 supplements the method steps of claim 6 by reciting the additional steps of(l)
`
`calculating a distance traveled by the vehicle based on at least one of the one or more data
`
`elements extracted from the at least one sensor, (2) determining speed data associated with the
`
`vehicle based on at least one ofthe one or more data elements, (3) recording a rate of change in
`
`vehicle speed with respect to time based on at least one of the one or more data elements
`
`extracted from the at least one sensor, and (4) processing the distance traveled, the rate of change
`
`in vehicle speed with respect to time, and the speed data to compute the insurance rating for the
`
`vehicle. The content of claim 68 is clear from the claim language itself and the portions of the
`
`specification cited as support for this claim in Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment filed January
`
`26, 2011. Regarding the Office Action’s comparison ofthe claim language with the
`
`specification language, Applicant notes that “[t]here is no requirement that the words in the
`
`claim must match those used in the specification disclosure.” M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(e). The Office
`
`Action also highlights the use in the claim of “processor,” but this term is not recited in amended
`
`claim 68. Therefore, in View of the amendment of claim 68, Applicants respectfully request the
`
`withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/01 1,252
`U.S. Patent 6,064,970
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 12741-32
`Page 103 of 135
`
`Page 000603
`
`

`
`I
`
`Claim 69
`
`Claim 69 supplements the method steps of claims 6 and 68 by reciting the additional
`
`steps of (1) monitoring time of day driving data associated with the vehicle, and (2) processing
`
`the time of day driving data to compute the insurance rating for the vehicle. The content of
`
`claim 69 is clear from the claim language itself and the portions of the specification cited as
`
`support for this claim in Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment filed January 26, 201 1. Regarding
`
`the Office Action’s comparison ofthe claim language with the specification language, Applicant
`
`notes that “[t]here is no requirement that the words in the claim must match those used in the
`
`specification disclosure.” M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(e). The Office Action also highlights the use in
`
`the claim of “processor,” but this term is not recited in amended claim 69. Therefore, in view of
`
`the amendment ofclaim 69, Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal ofthis rejection.
`
`'
`
`Claim 70
`
`The Office Action requests clarification of various claim terms in claim 70 that are the
`
`same or substantially the same as claim terms found in patented claim 6. However, the Office
`
`Action analyzes and examines these terms in claim 6 on pages 24-56 of the Office Action
`
`without raising the issue of indefiniteness. Therefore, claim 70 would be clear to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art for at least the same reasons as it was clear when a construction of claim 6 was
`
`provided in the Office Action. There is no indication in the particular context of claim 70, that
`
`the construed limitations have a changed meaning; therefore, they should be construed to mean
`
`what they say. Additionally, the content of claim 70 is clear from the claim language itselfand
`
`the portions of the specification cited as support for this claim in Applicants’ Preliminary
`
`Amendment filed January 26, 201 1. Regarding the Office Action’s comparison ofthe claim
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/011,252
`U.S. Patent 6,064,970
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 12741-32
`Page 104 of 135
`
`Page 000604
`
`

`
`language with the specification language, Applicant notes that “[t]here is no requirement that the
`
`words in the claim must match those used in the specification disclosure.” M.P.E.P. §
`
`21 73.05(e). Claim 70 has been amended to address the antecedent basis issues raised on page
`
`159 ofthe Office Action. Therefore, in view ofthe amendment ofclaim 70, Applicants
`
`respectfully request the withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`I
`
`Claim 71
`
`Claim 71 supplements the method steps ofclaim 70 by reciting the additional step of
`
`generating a plurality of insurance actuarial classes based on the data elements being extracted
`
`and stored, where the insurance rating is based on the application of the insurance actuarial
`
`classes. The content of claim 71 is clear from the claim language itself and the portions ofthe
`
`specification cited as support for this claim in Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment filed January
`
`26, 201 1. Regarding the Office Action’s comparison ofthe claim language with the
`
`specification language, Applicant notes that “[t]here is no requirement that the words in the
`
`claim must match those used in the specification disclosure.” M.P.E.P. § 2l73.05(e). The Office
`
`Action also highlights the use in the claim of“dynamic” and “change relative to,” but these
`
`terms are not recited in amended claim 71. Therefore, in view ofthe amendment of claim 71,
`
`Applicants respectfiilly request the withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`I
`
`Claim 72
`
`Claim 72 further defines the “correlating” step of claim 70. Claim 70 recites that the
`
`group data values are correlated to preset insurance values. Claim 72 adds that the group data
`
`values are consolidated with insurance actuarial classes. The content of claim 72 is clear from
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/011,252
`U.S. Patent 6,064,970
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 12741-32
`Page 105 of 135
`
`Page 000605
`
`

`
`the claim language itself and the portions of the specification cited as support for this claim in
`
`Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment filed January 26, 201 1. Regarding the Office Action’s
`
`comparison of the claim language with the specification language, Applicant notes that “[t]here
`
`is no requirement that the words in the claim must match those used in the specification
`
`disclosure.” M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(e). The Office Action also highlights the use in the claim of
`
`“the act,” but this term is not recited in amended claim 72. Therefore, in view of the amendment
`
`of claim 72, Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`I
`
`Claim 73
`
`Claim 73 supplements the method steps of claim 70 by reciting the additional step of
`
`generating a plurality of insurance actuarial classes based at least in part on an aggregation of
`
`data elements representing actual driving characteristics of vehicles and human actions that were
`
`previously extracted and stored in a plurality of vehicles from a plurality of in—vehicle sensors.
`
`The content ofclaim 73 is clear from the claim language itself and the portions ofthe
`
`specification cited as support for this claim in Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment filed January
`
`26, 2011. Regarding the Office Action’s comparison ofthe claim language with the
`
`specification language, Applicant notes that “[t]here is no requirement that the words in the
`
`claim must match those used in the specification disclosure.” M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(e). The Office
`
`Action also highlights the use in the claim of “operating states” and “selected,” but these terms
`
`are not recited in amended claim 73. Therefore, in view of the amendment of claim 73,
`
`Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/011,252
`U.S. Patent 6,064,970
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 12741-32
`Page 106 of 135
`
`Page 000606
`
`

`
`IV.
`
`Status of Claims and Support for Claim Changes
`
`By this Amendment, claims 1-80 are pending. Claims 16-42, 44-57, 59-61, 63, 64, and
`
`66-73 have been amended, and claims 74-80 are newly added. Below is a listing of exemplary
`
`support for the content of claims 16-80 followed by marked-up versions of claims 16-42, 44-57,
`
`59-61, 63, 64, and 66-73 to illustrate the changes made to those claims in this Amendment.
`
`A.
`
`Exemplary Support
`
`Claim 16 is fully supported by the description in the specification (e.g., col. 3, line 61 to
`
`col. 4, line 15; col. 8, lines 39-52; col. 12, lines 7-25). The amendments to claim 16 above are
`
`fully supported by these passages as well as col. 6, line 44 to col. 7, line 16 and col. 8, lines 27-
`
`31.
`
`Claim 17 is fully supported by the description in the specification (e.g., col. 8, lines 39-
`
`52; col. 1], lines 42-61). The amendments to claim 17 above are fully supported by these
`
`passages as well as col. 6, line 44 to col. 7, line 16 and col. 8, lines 27-31.
`
`Claim 18 is fully supported by the description in the specification (e.g., col. 8, lines 39-
`
`52; col. 11, lines 42-61). The amendments to claim 18 above are fully supported by these
`
`passages as well as col. 6, line 44 to col. 7, line 16 and col. 8, lines 27-31.
`
`Claim 19 is fully supported by the description in the specification (e.g., col. 3, lines 45-
`
`50; col. 6, line 41; col. 5, lines 27 - 32; col. 8, line 1; col. 8, lines 51-52; col. 4, line 46; abstract;
`
`col. 3, line 61 to col. 4, line 10; col. 5, lines 34-43; col. 6, lines 9-31). The amendments to claim
`
`19 above are fully supported by these passages as well as col. 6, line 44 to col. 7, line 16 and col.
`
`8, lines 27-31.
`
`Claim 20 is fully supported by the description in the specification (e.g., col. 6, line 41;
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/01 1,252
`US. Patent 6,064,970
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 12741-32
`Page 107 of 135
`
`Page 000607
`
`

`
`col. 8, line 1; col. 8, lines 51-52; col. 4, lines 11-14; col. 4, line 46; col. 8, line 61 to col. 9, line
`
`33). The amendments to claim 20 above are fully supported by these passages as well as col. 6,
`
`line 44 to col. 7, line 16 and col. 8, lines 27-31.
`
`Claim 21 is fully supported by the description in the specification (e.g., col. 6, line 41;
`
`col. 8, line 1; col. 8, lines 51-52; col. 4, line 46; abstract; col. 3, line 61 to col. 4, line 15; col. 8,
`
`lines 44-52; col. 12, lines 7-25). The amendments to claim 21 above are fully supported by these
`
`passages as well as col. 6, line 44 to col. 7, line 16 and col. 8, lines 27-31.
`
`Claim 22 is fully supported by the description in the specification (e.g., col. 5, lines 27-
`
`32; col. 6, line 41; col. 8, line 1; col. 8, lines 51-52; col. 4, line 46). The amendments to claim 22
`
`above are fully supported by these passages as well as col. 6, line 44 to col. 7, line 16 and col. 8,
`
`lines 27-31.
`
`Claim 23 is fully supported by the description in the specification (e.g., col. 3, lines 45-
`
`50; col. 6, line 42; col. 8, lines 51-52; col. 4, line 45; co]. 4, lines 63-64; abstract; col. 3, line 61
`
`to col. 4, line 10; col. 5, lines 27-43; col. 6, lines 9-31). The amendments to claim 23 above are
`
`fully supported by these passages as well as col. 6, line 44 to col. 7, line 16 and col. 8, lines 27-
`
`31.
`
`Claim 24 is fully supported by the description in the specification (e.g., col. 6, line 42;
`
`col. 8, lines 51-52; col. 4, line 45; col. 4, lines 11-14; col. 4, lines 62-64; col. 8, line 61 to col. 9,
`
`line 33). The amendments to claim 24 above are fully supported by these passages as well as
`
`col. 6, line 44 to col. 7, line 16 and col. 8, lines 27-31.
`
`Claim 25 is fully supported by the description in the specification (e.g., col. 6, line 42;
`
`col. 8, lines 51-52; col. 4, line 45; col. 4, lines 63-64; abstract; col. 3, line 61 to col. 4, line 15;
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/011,252
`U.S. Patent 6,064,970
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 12741-32
`Page 108 of 135
`
`Page 000608
`
`

`
`col. 8, lines 44-52; col. 12, lines 7-25). The amendments to claim 25 above are fully supported
`
`by these passages as well as col. 6, line 44 to col. 7, line 16 and col. 8, lines 27-31.
`
`Claim 26 is fully supported by the description in the specification (e.g., col. 5, lines 27-
`
`32; col. 6, line 42; col. 8, lines 51-52; col. 4, line 45; col. 4, lines 63-64). The amendments to
`
`claim 26 above are fully supported by these passages as well as col. 6, line 44 to col. 7, line 16
`
`and col. 8, lines 27-31.
`
`Claim 27 is fully supported by the description in the specification (e.g., col. 4, line 43;
`
`col

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket