`
`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