Application/Control Number: 90/011,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Claim 39:
`
`_
`
`Page 116
`
`This claim also requires in addition to the method of claim 6, (i.e. “extracting one or
`
`more data elements from at least one sensor wherein the one or more elements are of at least one
`
`operating state of the vehicle and the at least one human's actions during a data collection period;
`
`analyzing, grouping, and storing _tl_1§ 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
`
`i the output data value is used to compute an insurance rating for the vehicle FOR [sic]
`
`the data collection period” (emphasis added)), the step of prospectively setting an insurance
`
`cost or an insurance premium associated with the vehicle by a processor based on th_e one or
`niore data elements. First, see the discussion of “a cost of insurance” with regard tolclaim 4
`
`supra. Therefore it is unclear whether the terminology “setting an insurance cost” and
`
`“setting. . .an insurance premium” are one and the same? Patent Owner relies upon, e.g., the
`
`‘ abstract and col. 5, lines 34-43 of the ‘970 Patent for support, see pages 18-24 of the 1-26-11
`
`amendment. Note again 37 CFR 530(e). Such portions do describe prospectively setting “a cost
`
`of automobile insurance” based on monitoring and recording of raw data elements, abstract, but
`
`do not describe the step of prospectively setting “an insurance premium” associated with the
`
`vehicle by a processor based on the one or more data elements extracted from the at least one
`
`sensor (Note again the discussion of “a cost of insurance” with regard to claim 4 supra) nor such
`
`step of prospectively setting in addition to steps of a method as claimed in claim 6 nor use of “a
`
`processor” to compute the cost or premium. Therefore, and in light of MPEP 2258, the step of
`
`this claim is unclear (e.g. Does the claim language at its broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`Page 000865
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/01 1,252
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 1 17
`
`require the step of the instant claim to comprise a step in addition to the steps of claim 6 or not?
`
`What does the claim language “an insurance cost or an insurance premium” at its broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation require? Are they the same? -See the discussion supra again, i.e.
`
`“First. . ..” Are one or both the same as, e.g., “insurance rating”? “Base cost”? “Final cost”?
`
`“Total cost”? A pure premium? A gross premium? See the discussion of claim 4 supra again.
`
`Note also the discussion of claim 38 supra and claims 40, 61-64 and 70 infra. See also
`
`discussion of the clarity of the terminology “a processor” supra again.). Accordingly, for
`
`purposes of examination, the step of this claim will be considered either in addition to the steps
`
`' of claim 6 or the steps of claim 6 will be considered to comprise the prospective setting step of
`
`this claim wherein at a minimum the insurance “rating” computed is associated a “cost” or a
`
`“premium” prospectively set by a processor. See also discussion of clarity of the terminology “a
`
`processor” supra again.
`
`Claim 40:
`
`This claim also requires in addition to the method of claim 6, (i.e. “extracting one or
`
`more data elements from at least one sensor wherein the one or more elements are of at least one
`
`operating state of the vehicle and the at least one human's actions during a data collection period;
`
`analyzing, grouping, and storing th_e 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
`
`E the output data value is used to compute an insurance rating for the vehicle FOR [sic]
`
`the data collection period” (emphasis added)), the step of prospectively setting an insurance
`
`Page 000866
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 118
`
`cost or an insurance premium associated with the vehicle by a processor based on fl_1§
`
`insurance rating. First, see the discussion of “a cost of insurance” with regard to claim 4 supra.
`
`Therefore it is unclear whether the terminology “setting an insurance cost” and “setting. ..an
`
`insurance premium” and “the insurance rating” are one and the same? Patent Owner relies upon,
`
`e.g., title, the abstract, col. 5, lines 12-22, col. 5, lines 27-46, col. 3, lines 40-58 and col. 6, lines
`
`46-49 of the ‘97O Patent for support, see pages 18-24 of the 1-26-11 amendment. Note again 37
`
`CFR 530(e). Q portions d_o describe prospectively setting of “a costiof automobile
`
`insurance”, applying for “insurance rating purposes”, providing “enhanced rating precision” or
`
`determining “a fair cost of insurance” based on monitored and recorded of data elements, e.g.,
`
`raw data elements, or basing “insurance charges with regard to current material data
`
`representative of actual driving characteristics to provide a classification rating”, butQ
`
`describe the step of prospectively setting an insurance cost or an insurance premium
`
`associated with the vehicle by a processor based on Q insurance rating. (Note again the
`
`discussion of “a cost of insurance” with regard to claim 4 supra and the lack of modifying
`
`language with regard to the terminology) nor such step of prospectively setting in addition to
`
`steps of a method as claimed in claim 6, nor use of “a processor” to set the cost or premium.
`
`Therefore, and in light of MPEP, the step of this claim is unclear (e.g. Does the claim language at
`
`its broadest reasonable interpretation require the step of the instant claim to comprise a step in
`
`addition to the steps of claim 6 or not? What does the claim language “an insurance cost or an
`
`insurance premium.. .based on the insurance rating” at its broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`require? Are they the same? See the discussion supra again, i.e. “First. . ..” Are none, one or
`
`both the same as, e.g., “insurance rating”? “Base cost”? “Final cost”? “Total cost”? A pure
`
`Page 000867
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/01 1,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 1 19
`
`premium? A gross premium? See the discussion of claim 4 supra again. Note also the
`
`discussion of claims 38-39 supra and claims 61-64 and 70 infra. See also discussion of the
`
`clarity of the terminology “a processor” supra again.). Accordingly, for purposes of
`
`examination, the step of this claim will be considered either in addition to the steps of claim 6 or
`
`the steps of claim 6 will be considered to comprise the prospective setting step of this claim
`
`wherein at a minimum the insurance “rating” computed is associated with a “cost” or a
`
`“premium” which is prospectively set by a processor. See also discussion of clarity of the
`
`terminology “a processor” supra again.
`
`Claim 41 :
`
`This claim also requires in addition to the method of claim 6, (i.e. “extracting one or
`
`more data elements from at least one sensor wherein the one or more elements are of at least one
`
`operating state of the vehicle and the at least one human's actions during a data collection period;
`
`analyzing, grouping, and pg Q one or more data elements as ggoup 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 [sic]
`
`the data collection period” (emphasis added)), the step of selecting one or more of E one or
`
`more data elements by a processor for use to determine an actuarial class associated with the
`
`vehicle; and selecting one or more of _th_e one or more data elements by the processor for use to
`
`determine a surcharge or discount to be applied to a base cost of insurance associated with
`
`the vehicle. First, the terminology “selecting. . .for use to determine” is unclear, i.e. what is being
`
`Page 000868
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`_
`
`Page 120
`
`done with the data elements (Note also the discussion of the interpretation of “analyzing,
`grouping, and storing th_e one or more data elements as group data values in a first memory
`
`related to a predetermined group of elements” (emphasis added) with regard to claim 6 supra.
`
`Note also the data elements selected do not have to be different data elements, note the portions
`
`cited for support infra.) Second Patent Owner relies upon, e.g., title, the abstract, col. 5, lines 7-
`
`12 of the ‘970 Patent for support, see pages 18-24 of the 1-26-ll amendment. Note again 37
`
`CFR 530(e). 1 portions of the ‘970 Patent do describeuse of gathered and analyzed data to
`
`Ldetermine actuarial classes and surcharges or discounts but gl_c_)__r_1_o_t describe such selecting in
`
`addition to the steps of the method as claimed in claim 6, e. g. the analyzing step, grouping and
`
`storing step nor such selecting by “a processor”. Therefore, and in light of MPEP 2258, the
`
`steps of this claim are additionally unclear (e. g. Does the claim language at its broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation require the steps of the instant claim in addition to the steps of claim 6
`
`or not? See also discussion of clarity of the terminology “a processor” supra again. See also the
`
`discussion of clarity supra, i.e. “First. . ..”). Accordingly, for purposes of examination, this claim
`
`will be interpreted to require the steps of this claim either in addition to the steps of claim 6 or at
`least one offire one or more data elements ofthe analyzing, grouping and storing step according
`
`to claim 6 being determinative of an “actuarial class” and or at least one ofQ one or more data
`
`elements of the analyzing, grouping and storing step according to claim 6 being determinative of
`
`a surcharge or discount to be applied to a base cost of insurance. Note again the discussion of
`
`the interpretation of the terminology “a processor” supra.
`
`Page 000869
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Claim 42:
`
`Page 121
`
`This claim also requires the step of analyzing, grouping and storing according to claim 6,
`
`(i.e. “analyzing, grouping, and storing th_e one or more data elements as group data values in a
`
`first memor_v_ related to a predetermined group of elements” (emphasis added) (Note also the ’
`
`discussion of the interpretation of such claim language with regard to claim 6 supra), to comprise
`
`grc>_u13i_ng speed data of the vehicle in combination with a location of the vehicle in a log of
`
`Vehicle speed for the location. First, the claim is unclear, i.e. is the one of the one or more data
`
`elements recorded/stored in the first memory as group values related to a predetermined group of
`
`elements as claimed in claim 6 and speed data additionally stored in a log in combination with a
`
`location of the .vehicle for the speed data g is speed and/or location and log as claimed in this
`
`claim data values of a group and a first memory related to the predetermined group of elements
`
`as claimed in claim 6 (i.e. are the speed data and location and log of this claim and the data
`
`elements, group data values and first memory one and the same?) Second, Patent Owner relies
`
`upon, e.g., col. 8, lines 44-51 and col. 11, lines 42-61 of the ‘970 Patent for support, see pages
`
`18-24 of the 1-26-11 amendment. Note again 37 CFR l.530(e). S_uQ portions of the ‘970 Patent,
`
`Q describe recording into a data base a selected data element of the one or more data elements,
`
`e.g. vehicle speed, in combination with the time _an_d date as well as a corresponding location of
`
`the vehicle at the occurrence of recording of the data element(s) but doit describe such
`
`recording as part of a step of analyzing, grouping and storing of a method as claimed in claim 6.
`
`Note also with regard to the clarity discussion supra that such portions also £1041 describe
`
`recording the selected one of the one of the data elements in the first memory in combination
`
`with a location of the vehicle associated with the selected data element an_d recording the one or
`
`Page 000870
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 122
`
`more data elements in the first memory as well. Therefore, and in light of MPEP 2258, the step
`
`of this claim is additionally unclear (e.g. Does the claim language at its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation require the steps of the instant claim to comprise the step of analyzing, grouping
`
`and storing according to claim 6 or not?) Accordingly, for purposes of examination, this claim
`
`will be interpreted to require the step of this claim in addition to the steps of claim 6 or the
`
`analyzing, grouping and storing step according to claim 6 to include at least two data_elements,
`
`i.e. speed and location as data values of a group, i.e. the log stored in the first memory.
`
`Claim 43:
`
`This claim also requires in addition to the method of claim 6, (i.e. “extracting one or
`
`more data elements from at least one sensor wherein the one or more elements are of at least one
`
`operating state of the vehicle and the at least one human's actions during a data collection period; '
`
`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 [sic]
`
`the data collection period” (emphasis added)), the step of communicating information
`
`representative of a trigger event associated with the one or more data elements to a central
`
`control station remote from the vehicle via a communications uplink. Patent Owner relies upon,
`
`e.g., col. 4, lines 16-20, col. 6, lines 63-65, col. 7, lines 18-20, col. 8, line 61 to col. 9, line 8 and
`
`Figure 4 of the ‘970 Patent for support, see pages 18-24 of the 1-26-11 amendment. Note again
`
`37 CFR 530(e). Such portions of the ‘970 Patent describe certain of the recorded sensor
`
`Page 000871
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 123
`
`information may be determined to be a “trigger event” defined as a combination of a sensor data
`
`requiring additional action including immediate upload to a central control or possibly resulting
`
`in a surcharge or discount during the insurance billing process and the former of which may be a
`
`trigger event of rapid deceleration in combination with airbag deployment indicating a collision
`
`or a trigger of an emergency light in which case central control is notified of the vehicle location
`
`but do not describe communicatinginformation representative of a trigger event i.e. includes the
`
`indication of a trigger event which would result in a surcharge or discount during an insurance
`
`billing process, associated with the one or more data elements to a central control station
`
`remote from the vehicle via a communications uplink. Therefore, and in light of MPEP 2258,
`
`the step of this claim is unclear (e.g. Does the claim language at its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation require the claimed communication of information of a “trigger event”, i.e. which
`
`would result in a surcharge or discount during an insurance billing process, associated with a
`
`data element or not?) Accordingly, for piuposes of examination, the step of claim 6 will be
`
`considered to further comprise communicating information representative of a trigger event i.e.
`
`not precluding the indication of a trigger event which would result in a surcharge or discount
`
`during an insurance billing process, associated with the one or more data elements to a central
`
`control station remote from the vehicle via a communications uplink.
`
`Claim 44:
`
`This claim also requires in addition to the method of claim 6, (i.e. “extracting one or
`
`more data elements from at least one sensor wherein the one or more elements are of at least one
`
`operating state of the vehicle and the at least one human's actions during a data collection period;
`
`Page 000872
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 124
`
`analyzing, grouping, and storing Q 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
`
`i the output data value is used to compute an insurance rating for the vehicle FOR [sic]
`
`the data collection period” (emphasis added)), the step of assigping the vehicle to an insurance
`
`actuarial class by a processor based on a measured total driving time of the vehicle during the
`
`data collection period. Patent Owner relies upon, e.g., col. 4, lines 26-34, col. 5, lines 7-12, col.
`
`5, lines 28-43 of the ‘97O Patent for support, see pages 18-24 of the 1-26-11 amendment. Note
`again 37 CFR 530(e).
`portions ofthe ‘970 Patent Q describe using information
`
`gathered/provided from the vehicle to develop actuarial classes which classes include a driver
`
`I class based on total driving time and aggregate and apply for insurance rating purposes generated
`
`data but i describe such infonnation using or aggregating and applying in addition to the
`
`steps of the method as claimed in claim 6, e.g. extracting and or the analyzing step, grouping and
`
`storing step, nor assigping the vehicle to an insurance actuarial class based on a measured total
`
`driving time of the vehicle during the data collection period nor such by “a processor”.
`
`Therefore, and in light of MPEP 2258, the step of this ‘claim is additionally unclear (e.g. Does the
`
`claim language at its broadest reasonable interpretation require the steps of the instant claim in
`
`addition to the steps of claim 6 or not? (Note also the discussion of the interpretation of
`
`“analyzing, grouping, and storing th_e one or more data elements as group data values in a first
`
`. mernog; related to a predetermined group of elements” (emphasis added) with regard to claim
`
`6 supra.) See also discussion of clarity of the terminology “a processor” supra again. Does the
`
`claim language at its broadest reasonable interpretation require assigning the vehicle or driver to
`
`Page 000873
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 125 ,
`
`a class based on a measured total driving time of the vehicle?) Accordingly, for purposes of
`
`examination, the step of this claim will be considered either in addition to the steps of claim 6 or
`
`at least one of tg one or more data elements of the extracting step of claim 6 will be considered
`
`to be total driving time and the analyzing, grouping and storing step according to claim 6 will be
`
`considered to have a group for data values stored wherein the group is related to loss/risk/safety
`
`characteristics including total driving time. Note the discussion of the terminology “actuarial
`
`class” with regard to the discussion of claim 41 infra. Note again the discussion of the
`
`interpretation of the terminology “a processor” supra.
`
`Claim 45:
`
`This claim also requires in addition to the method of claim 6, (i.e. “extracting one or
`
`more data elements from at least one sensor wherein the one or more elements are of at least one
`
`operating state of the vehicle and the at least one hurnan's actions during a data collection period;
`
`analyzing, grouping, and storing tl_1§ one or more data elements as ggoup 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 [sic]
`
`the data collection period” (emphasis added)), the step of assigning the vehicle to an insurance
`
`actuarial class by a processor based on a measured driving time of the vehicle in predetermined
`
`high risk locations during the data collection period. Patent Owner relies upon, e.g., col. 4, lines
`
`26-36, col. 5, lines 7-12, col. 5, lines 28-43 of the ‘970 Patent for support, see pages 18-24 of the
`
`1-26-11 amendment. Note again 37 CFR 530(e). Such portions of the ‘970 Patent d_o describe
`
`Page 000874
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/O1 1,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 126
`
`using information gathered/provided from the vehicle to develop actuarial classes which classes
`
`include a driver class based on driving time in high risk locations and aggregating and applying
`
`for insurance rating purposes generated data but cic)_r1_<)_t describe such information using or
`
`aggregating and applying in addition to the steps of the method as claimed in claim 6, e. g.
`
`extracting and or the analyzing step, grouping and storing step, nor assigning the vehicle to an
`
`insurance actuarial class based on a measured driving time of the vehicle in predetermined
`
`high risk locations during the data collection period nor such by “a processor”. Therefore, and ’
`
`in light of MPEP 2258, the step of this claim is unclear (egg. Does the claim language at its
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation require the steps of the instant claim in addition to the steps of
`claim 6 or not? {Note also the discussion ofthe interpretation of “analyzing, grouping, and
`
`storing me one or more data elements as group data values in a first memo;v_ related to a
`
`predetermined group of elements” (emphasis added) with regard to claim 6 supra.) See also
`
`discussion of clarity of the terminology “a processor” supra again. Does the claim language at
`
`its broadest reasonable interpretation require assigning the vehicle or driver to a class based on a
`
`measured driving time in high risk locations of the vehicle? Are the locations predetermined or
`
`not?) Accordingly, for purposes of examination, the step of thisvclaim will be considered either
`
`in addition to the steps of claim 6 or at least one of Q one or more data elements of the
`
`extracting step of claim 6 will be considered to be driving time in high risk locations and the
`
`analyzing, grouping and storing step according to claim 6 will be considered to have a group for
`
`data values stored wherein the group is related to loss/risk/safety characteristics including driving
`
`time in high risk locations. Note the discussion of the tenninology “actuarial class” with regard
`
`Page 000875
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/01 1,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 127
`
`to the discussion of claim 41 infra. Note again the discussion of the interpretation of the
`
`terminology “a processor” supra.
`
`Claim 46:
`
`This claim also requires in addition to the method of claim 6, (i.e. “extracting one or
`
`more data elements from at least one sensor wherein the one or more elements are of at least one
`
`operating state of the vehicle and the at least one human's actions during a data collection period;
`
`analyzing, grouping, and fling th_e 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
`
`L the output data value is used to compute an insurance rating for the vehicle FOR [sic]
`
`the data collection period” (emphasis added)), the step of assigning the vehicle to an insurance
`
`actuarial class by a processor based on a measured driving time of the vehicle at predetermined
`
`high risk times during the data collection period. Patent Owner relies upon, e.g.,‘ col. 4, lines 26-
`
`39, col. 5, lines 7-12, col. 5, lines 28-43 of the ‘970 Patent for support, see pages 18-24 of the 1-
`
`26-11 amendment. Note again 37 CFR 530(e). Q portions of the ‘970 Patent Q describe
`
`using information gathered/provided from the vehicle to develop actuarial classes which classes
`
`include a driver class based on driving time at high risk times and aggregating and applying for
`
`insurance rating purposes generated data but ding describe such information using or
`
`aggregating and applying in addition to the steps of the method as claimed in claim 6, e.g.
`
`extracting and or the analyzing step, grouping and storingvstep, nor assigning the vehicle to an
`
`insurance actuarial class based on a measured driving time of the vehicle at predetermined
`
`Page 000876
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 128
`
`high risk times during the data collection period nor such by “a processor”. Therefore, and in
`
`light of MPEP 2258, the step of this claim is unclear (e.g. Does the claim language at its broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation require the steps of the instant claim in addition to the steps of claim 6
`
`or not? (Note also the discussion of the interpretation of “analyzing, grouping, and storing th_e
`
`one or more data elements as group data values in a first memogy related to a predetermined
`
`group of elements” (emphasis added) with regard to claim 6.) See also discussion of clarity of
`
`the terminology “a processor” supra again. Does the claim language at its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation require assigning the vehicle or driver to a class based on a measured driving time
`
`at high risk times of the vehicle? Are the times predetermined or not? ) Accordingly, for
`
`purposes of examination, the step of this claim will be considered either in addition to the steps
`
`of claim 6 or at least one of fie one or more data elements of the extracting step of claim 6 will
`
`be considered to be driving time at high risk times and the analyzing, grouping and storing step
`
`according to claim 6 will be considered to have a group for data values stored wherein the group p
`
`is related to loss/risk/safety characteristics including driving time at high risk times. Note the
`
`discussion of the terminology “actuarial class” with regard to the discussion of claim 41 infra.
`
`Note again the discussion of the interpretation of the terminology “a processor” supra.
`
`Claim 47:
`
`This claim also requires in addition to the method of claim 6, (i.e. “extracting one or
`
`more data elements from at least one sensor wherein the one or more elements are of at least one
`
`operating state of the vehicle and the at least one human's actions during a data collection period;
`
`analyzing, grouping, and storing Q one or more data elements as group data values in a first
`
`Page 000877
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 129
`
`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
`
`i the output data value is used to compute an insurance rating for the vehicle FOR [sic]
`
`the data collection period” (emphasis added)), the step of processing speed <i_atg associated with
`the vehicle bag! on the one or more data elements extracted from the at least one in-vehicle
`
`sensor and assigning the vehicle to an insurance actuarial class by a processor based on the
`
`speed. First a positive structural antecedent basis for the terminology, “th_e at least in-vehicle
`
`sensor” (emphasis added) should set forth. Second Patent Owner relies upon, e.g., col. 4, lines
`
`26-57, col. 5, lines 6-12, col. 5, lines 28-43, col. 6, line 36, col. 7, line 60, col. 8, line 20, col. 8,
`
`lines 27-52, col. 9, lines 62-67, and col. 12, lines 4-18 of the ‘97O Patent for support, see pages
`
`18-24 of the 1-26-11 amendment. Note again 37 CFR 530(e). 1 portions of the ‘970 Patent
`
`gig describe using information gathered/provided from the vehicle to develop actuarial classes
`
`which classes include a driver class based on observance of speed limit and aggregating and
`
`applying for insurance rating purposes generated data but in describe such information using
`
`or aggregating and applying in addition to the steps of the method as claimed in claim 6, e. g.
`
`extracting and or the analyzing step, grouping and storing step, nor assigning the vehicle to an
`
`insurance actuarial class based on processed speed data associated with the vehicle nor such
`
`by “a processor”. Therefore, and in light of MPEP 2258, the steps of this claim are additionally
`
`unclear (e. g. Does the claim language at its broadest reasonable interpretation require the steps of
`
`the instant claim in addition to the steps of claim 6 or not? (Note also the discussion of the
`
`interpretation of “analyzing, grouping, and storing gig one or more data elements as group data
`
`values in a first memog; related to a predetermined group of elements” (emphasis added)
`
`Page 000878
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 130
`
`with regard to claim 6 supra. See also discussion of clarity of the terminology “a processor”
`
`supra again. Does the claim language at its broadest reasonable interpretation require assigning
`
`the vehicle or driver to a class based on processed speed time associated with the vehicle? Are ~
`
`- the times predetermined or not? ) Accordingly, for purposes of examination, the step of this
`
`claim will be considered either in addition to the steps of claim 6 or at least one of th_e_ one or
`
`more data elements of the extracting step of claim 6 will be considered to be speed data and the
`
`analyzing, grouping and storing step according to claim 6 will be considered to have a group for
`
`data values stored wherein the group is related to loss/risk/safety characteristics including speed
`
`data. Note the discussion of the terminology “actuarial class” with regard to the discussion of
`
`claim 41 infra. Note again the discussion of the interpretation of the terminology “a processor”
`
`supra.
`
`Claim 48:
`
`This claim also requires in addition to the method of claim 6, (i.e. “extracting one or
`
`more data elements from at least one sensor wherein the one or more elements are of at least one
`
`operating state ofthe vehicle and the at least one human's actions during a data collection period;
`
`analyzing, grouping, and pg 115 one or more data elements as ggoup data values in a first
`
`memory related to a predetermined ggoup 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 [sic]
`
`the data collection period” (emphasis added)), the step of determining speed limit observation
`
`data associated with the vehicle based on the one or more data elements extracted from the at
`
`Page 000879
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,252
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 131
`
`least one sensor and assigning the vehicle to an insurance actuarial class by a processor based
`
`on the speed limit observation data. Patent Owner relies upon, e.g., col. 4, lines 26-57, col. 5,
`
`lines 6-12, col. 5, lines 28-43, col. 6, line 36, col. 7, line 60, col. 8, line 20, col. 8, lines 27-52,
`
`col. 9, lines 62-67, and col. 11, lines 4-18 of the ‘97O Patent for support, see pages 18-24 of the
`
`1-26-11 amendment. Note again 37 CFR 530(e). E portions of the ‘970 Patent d_o describe
`
`using information gathered/provided from the vehicle to develop actuarial classes which classes
`
`include a driver class based on observance of speed limit and aggregating and applying for
`
`insurance rating purposes generated data but drug describe such information using or
`
`aggregating and applying in addition to the steps of the method as claimed in claim 6, e.g.
`
`extracting and or the analyzing step, grouping and storing step, nor assigning the vehicle to an
`
`insurance actuarial class based on determined speed limit observation data associated with
`
`the vehicle nor such by “a processor”. Therefore, and in light of MPEP 2258, the steps of this
`
`claim are additionally unclear (e.g. Does the claim language at its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation require the steps of the instant claim in addition to the steps of claim 6 or not?
`
`(Note also the discussion of the interpretation of “analyzing, grouping, and storing tl1_e one or
`
`more data elements as group data values in a first memory related to a predetermined group
`
`of elements” (emphasis added) with regard to claim 6 supra.) See also discussion of clarity of
`
`the terminology “a processor” supra again. Does the claim language at its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation require assigning the vehicle or driver to a class based on determined speed limit
`
`observation data associated with the vehicle?) Accordingly, for purposes of examination, the
`
`step of this claim will be considered either in addition to the steps of claim 6 or at least one of m
`
`one or more data elements of the extracting step o