DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-5, 7-9, 13-22, 24, 26-27, and 29-33 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/20/2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 9)
Amended claim 1 recites elements that cannot practically be performed in a human mind and encompass using AI in a way that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Therefore, amended claim 1 does not recite a mental process.
In response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim limitation of using AI or machine learning model is not part of the mental process, but the functions/steps they perform such as “the machine learning model … to generate a set of classification scores based on the input” and “executing the machine learning model … to generate a plurality of sets of classification scores” recite mental processes since these steps are based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion that are performable in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). That is, other than reciting “the machine learning model” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a user can determine a score/probability for each vehicle type on the trip. A user can determine a person drives a car to work instead of riding a bicycle based on the time or speed data of the trip.
Further, the claim does not recite a certain way to perform those functions/steps using AI or machine learning model to improve the model itself.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Applicant argues (pages 9-10)
Amended claim 1 integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application at least because claim 1 includes a combination of elements that reflect an improvement to a technical field of vehicle type classification using automobile movement measurements.
One technical challenge addressed by the present claims is the significant noise and variability inherent in measuring automobile movements in real-world driving conditions using sensors such as accelerometers, gyroscopes, and GPS modules. These measurements are frequently corrupted by external factors such as road bumps, varying traffic, and weather conditions, as well as by unpredictable driver behavior and smartphone placement, all of which can introduce errors and reduce the reliability of features extracted for vehicle classification. Id. at [0017], [0018]. Traditional approaches that rely on controlled environments and global features struggle to provide accurate vehicle identification under these noisy, open-road conditions. Id. at [0018], [0027].
The claims reflect a technological improvement by employing a machine learning model trained on telematics data from a plurality of trips and drivers to extract and utilize sophisticated time-dependent features, including spectrogram data, as part of the classification process. By incorporating spectrogram data the invention enables the model to capture subtle, short-time variations and local vehicle behaviors that are strong discriminators of vehicle type, even in the presence of sensor noise and driver-induced variability. Id. at [0040], [0071], [0130]. The specification demonstrates that using these spectral features substantially improves discrimination accuracy over basic statistical or event-based features alone, thereby enhancing the robustness and practical utility of vehicle type classification systems based on sensor data collected in uncontrolled, real-world environments. Id. at [0130].
In response
Vehicle type classification is not a technological field. A process of “classifying vehicle type” is based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion that are performable in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, the claim limitation recites a mental process. For example, a user can predict a person came to work by driving a car instead of riding a bicycle based on the time, speed data and distance between the person home and the company. Therefore, an improvement on the vehicle type classifying process is an improvement on the abstract idea, and an improvement on the abstract idea is not consider an improvement on the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
The Applicant then argued that “The claims reflect a technological improvement by employing a machine learning model trained on telematics data from a plurality of trips and drivers to extract and utilize sophisticated time-dependent features, including spectrogram data, as part of the classification process”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim limitations do not show an improvement to the functioning of a computer. The claim does not recite how the machine learning model is trained or operated to implement the classifying process such that the machine learning model is improved. For example, when a computer analyzing data in such a way to improve the computer function or to save computer resource then it is an improvement to the functioning of the computer, but if merely use of machine learning model to perform the vehicle type classification based on certain data input such as telematics data, spectrogram data etc., is no different than reciting that the method is performed on a computer ("using a computer or other machinery as a tool"), an additional element which by MPEP 2106.05 (f) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Further, by using certain data input such as telematics data, spectrogram data to train the machine learning model to perform classification, at best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea of determining a vehicle type rather than to an improvement on the functioning of a computer or to any other technology field, however, an improvement on the abstract idea is not consider an improvement on the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Applicant argues (pages 10-11)
The claims recite the use of heuristics derived from the first trip's metadata to identify and group previous trips associated with the same driver, addressing another technical challenge: the difficulty of reliably associating trips to the correct vehicle in datasets with multiple vehicles, unlabeled data, and inconsistent driver behavior. Id. at [0025], [0032], [0091]. By leveraging heuristics such as consecutive trip detection, the claimed invention improves the accuracy of automobile type assignment by aggregating evidence across related trips, rather than relying solely on potentially noisy single-trip predictions. Id. at [0091]. This approach enables more effective clustering and classification, directly addressing the problem of classifier uncertainty and the real-world complexity of open-set, driver-centric vehicle identification. Id. At [0032], [0091].
One technical limitation of training machine learning models for vehicle type classification on large, heterogeneous datasets is the inability to effectively learn or encode all relevant correlations between trips made by the same driver, particularly when dealing with unlabeled data or drivers who use multiple vehicles. Id. at [0025], [0026]. The inherent variability in driver behavior, trip context, and vehicle usage across a population makes it infeasible for the model to capture these nuanced, driver-specific relationships solely through the training process, especially when conventional models operate on per-trip features and do not explicitly model inter-trip dependencies. Id. at [0032], [0135]. This results in increased classification errors and reduced reliability when attempting to assign the correct vehicle type to a particular trip based only on isolated measurements and generic model training. Id. at [0032], [0135].
Using heuristics derived from trip metadata to aggregate evidence across multiple trips, the system can more accurately assign vehicle type classifications, thereby compensating for the inability of the machine learning model to capture higher-order correlations during initial training. Id. at [0032], [0135]. This architecture also yields substantial technical benefits in terms of efficiency because the model can be trained and executed using per-trip features and outputs, without the computational burden of modeling and learning inter-trip correlations across the entire dataset, making the model more scalable, adaptable, and practical for real-world deployment. Id. at [0026], [0032], [0135].
As demonstrated above, when the claim elements are considered in combination, the claim 1 reflects a series of specific improvements to the technological field of vehicle type classification using telematics sensor data. The claimed invention addresses real-world technical challenges including sensor noise, variability in driver behavior, and the inability of conventional machine learning models to capture higher-order trip correlations, by leveraging advanced feature extraction (including spectrogram data), driver-specific heuristics, and metadata-driven grouping of trips. These elements work together to yield more accurate, robust, and efficient vehicle classification in practical, open-world scenarios. Accordingly, the claims do not merely recite an abstract idea, but instead integrate any such idea into a practical application that improves the functioning of vehicle telematics analysis systems and the accuracy of vehicle identification in real-world environments. The claims are therefore patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two.
In response
As mentioned above, since the process of “classifying vehicle type” is based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion that are performable in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, the claim recites an abstract idea. While the applicant argues that “By leveraging heuristics such as consecutive trip detection, the claimed invention improves the accuracy of automobile type assignment by aggregating evidence across related trips …”, this statement itself makes clear that any alleged improvement is on the abstract idea itself. An improvement to the abstract idea is not consider an improvement on the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
The Applicant argues that the claim reflects a series of specific improvements of classifying the vehicle type using heuristics, telematics sensor data, spectrogram data, etc., however, it can be seen that the claim only recites using generic computer components (machine learning models) to generate the abstract idea (determine a vehicle type) based on certain data (heuristics, telematics sensor data, spectrogram data …), thus, the solution of “determining a vehicle type” is the improvement on the abstract idea, which, as mentioned above, is not the improvement in the computer technology field.
Therefore, the claim limitations as a whole does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-9, 13-22, 24, 26-27 and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “the machine learning model … to generate a set of classification scores based on the input”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “the machine learning model” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determines a probability for each vehicle type on the trip such as 80% a person was driving a car and 20% the person was riding a bus to work.
The limitation of “executing the machine learning model … to generate a plurality of sets of classification scores”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “the machine learning model” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determines the set of probabilities/scores for the vehicle types on the past trips such as the probabilities of a person was driving the car or riding a bus to work last week.
If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, it will be considered as falling within the "mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “sensors” and “a machine learning model”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “measuring, by one or more sensors, automobile movements produced during a first trip in an automobile, the one or more sensors being configured to transmit electronic signals indicating the automobile movements produced during the first trip” amount to insignificant extra-solution activities of data receiving and transmitting, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of “executing a machine learning model on an input comprising one or more features derived from the electronic signals, the one or more features including spectrogram data, wherein the machine learning model is trained on inputs from a plurality of trips associated with a plurality of drivers to generate a set of classification scores based on the input” and “executing the machine learning model on inputs for one or more previous trips that are associated with a same driver as the first trip and have trip information satisfying one or more heuristics derived from trip information for the first trip to generate a plurality of sets of classification scores”. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions of executing) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “the one or more features including spectrogram data”, “each classification score corresponding to a respective one of a plurality of automobile types” and “each set of the plurality of sets corresponding to a respective one of the one or more previous trips” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element of “storing the electronic signals produced during the first trip in association with a particular automobile type classification corresponding to an automobile type of the plurality of automobile types that maximizes a combined classification score for the first trip and the one or more previous trips” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of data storage. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of sensors” and “a machine learning model” to perform the generic computer functions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim recites the additional elements of “measuring, by one or more sensors, automobile movements produced during a first trip in an automobile, the one or more sensors being configured to transmit electronic signals indicating the automobile movements produced during the first trip”. The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
The additional elements of “executing a machine learning model on an input comprising one or more features derived from the electronic signals, the one or more features including spectrogram data, wherein the machine learning model is trained on inputs from a plurality of trips associated with a plurality of drivers to generate a set of classification scores based on the input” and “executing the machine learning model on inputs for one or more previous trips that are associated with a same driver as the first trip and have trip information satisfying one or more heuristics derived from trip information for the first trip to generate a plurality of sets of classification scores” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the one or more features including spectrogram data”, “each classification score corresponding to a respective one of a plurality of automobile types” and “each set of the plurality of sets corresponding to a respective one of the one or more previous trips” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element of "storing the electronic signals produced during the first trip in association with a particular automobile type classification corresponding to an automobile type of the plurality of automobile types that maximizes a combined classification score for the first trip and the one or more previous trips" is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of storing data. The courts have found limitations directed to storing information, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the automobile type comprises vehicle model” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the automobile type comprises vehicle model” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the automobile type comprises vehicle make” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the automobile type comprises vehicle make” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the one or more sensors comprises at least one of an accelerometer, a GPS component, a gyroscope, a barometer, or a magnetometer” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the one or more sensors comprises at least one of an accelerometer, a GPS component, a gyroscope, a barometer, or a magnetometer” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the one or more sensors are included in a tag device attached to the automobile” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the one or more sensors are included in a tag device attached to the automobile” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the one or more sensors are included in a smartphone” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the one or more sensors are included in a smartphone” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the one or more features further comprise statistical features” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the one or more features further comprise statistical features” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the one or more features further comprise time-dependent features” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the one or more features further comprise time-dependent features” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the time-dependent features comprise autocorrelation coefficients of a vertical acceleration” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the time-dependent features comprise autocorrelation coefficients of a vertical acceleration” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the one or more features comprise event-based features” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the one or more features comprise event-based features” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the one or more features further comprise one or a combination of two or more of suspension response, power to weight ratio, aerodynamics, or longitudinal friction” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the one or more features further comprise one or a combination of two or more of suspension response, power to weight ratio, aerodynamics, or longitudinal friction” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the one or more features further comprise lateral dynamics” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the one or more features further comprise lateral dynamics” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the one or more features further comprise hard acceleration or hard deacceleration” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the one or more features further comprise hard acceleration or hard deacceleration” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the one or more features further comprise spectral features” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the one or more features further comprise spectral features” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the spectral features are associated with engine vibration” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the spectral features are associated with engine vibration” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the spectral features are derived from gyroscope fluctuations” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the spectral features are derived from gyroscope fluctuations” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the trip information comprise one or more of: time of day, trip duration, or type of road” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the trip information comprise one or more of: time of day, trip duration, or type of road” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the one or more heuristics comprise identifying a previous trip that immediately precedes the first trip or immediately follows the first trip based on one or more of: a start time of the first trip, an end time of the first trip, a start location of the first trip, and an end location of the first trip” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the one or more heuristics comprise identifying a previous trip that immediately precedes the first trip or immediately follows the first trip based on one or more of: a start time of the first trip, an end time of the first trip, a start location of the first trip, and an end location of the first trip” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the one or more heuristics comprise identifying previous trips for which the trajectories match a trajectory of the first trip” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the one or more heuristics comprise identifying previous trips for which the trajectories match a trajectory of the first trip” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the machine learning model takes account of driver usage patterns” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the machine learning model takes account of driver usage patterns” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “determining a driving score for a driver of the automobile”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user, based on the collected motion data, assigning a score for the driver.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “determining a driving score … based on the electronic signals indicating the automobile movements produced during the first trip and the particular automobile type classification” which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “determining a driving score … based on the electronic signals indicating the automobile movements produced during the first trip and the particular automobile type classification” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “identifying, from the plurality of automobile types, the subset of automobile types associated with a user of the automobile”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determines the type of vehicle that the driver is/was riding.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “identifying the subset of automobile types associated with the user based on motion data acquired from one or more prior trips by the user” which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “identifying the subset of automobile types associated with the user based on motion data acquired from one or more prior trips by the user” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “the particular automobile type classification represents one or more characteristics of the automobile used during the trip” which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the particular automobile type classification represents one or more characteristics of the automobile used during the trip” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 13-14, 17, 24, 26 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordova et al. (US Pub. 2016/0327397) in view of Cox (US Pub. 2018/0204396) and further in view of Kanevsky (US Patent 10,902,521).
As per claim 1, Cordova teaches a method comprising
measuring, by one or more sensors, automobile movements produced during a first trip in an automobile, the one or more sensors being configured to transmit electronic signals indicating the automobile movements produced during the first trip [abstract, “system for classifying a mode of transportation during a trip includes a mobile device including a location detection system and an accelerometer. The mobile device is configured to collect location data and acceleration data during the trip”; Fig. 16, paragraph 0123, “Accelerometer data and gyroscope data are collected using the mobile device (1610). Several sensor data metrics are computed using the accelerometer and gyroscope data (1612); paragraph 0132, “The system for collecting trip data also can include a server 1850 that communicates with the mobile device 1801 … The transportation mode classifier 1854 can be referred to as a trip data analysis module and can utilize the various classifiers discussed herein. Utilizing data collected by the sensors, the particular mode of transportation utilized by the user during a trip can be determined”];
executing a machine learning model on an input comprising one or more features derived from the electronic signals [Fig. 16, paragraph 0123, “Accelerometer data and gyroscope data are collected using the mobile device (1610). Several sensor data metrics are computed using the accelerometer and gyroscope data (1612); paragraph 0132, “The system for collecting trip data also can include a server 1850 that communicates with the mobile device 1801 … The transportation mode classifier 1854 can be referred to as a trip data analysis module and can utilize the various classifiers discussed herein. Utilizing data collected by the sensors, the particular mode of transportation utilized by the user during a trip can be determined”; paragraph 0102, “peak accelerations from stationary (1414) and peak decelerations to stationary (1424) are detected for the trip. As an example, accelerations from stationary and decelerations to stationary are extracted from the speed signal to extract features from these acceleration/deceleration windows”], wherein the machine learning model is trained on inputs from a plurality of trips associated with a plurality of drivers to generate a set of classification scores based on the input, each classification score corresponding to a respective one of a plurality of automobile types [paragraph 0098, “The data sets generated in 1322, 1324, 1326, 1328, 1330, 1336, and 1344 are input to a random forest classifier (1338), which generates a probability that the trip was taken by bicycle”; paragraph 0113, “The values and arrays of values, for example, the probability density distributions … are input to a random forest classifier (1470), which generates a probability that the trip was taken using a bus”; paragraph 0128, “the analysis of the trip data provides a probability value for each of the particular modes of transportation that were analyzed, for example, plane as a mode of transportation, off-road as a mode of transportation, bicycle as a mode of transportation, train as a mode of transportation, and bus as a mode of transportation. In this example, the probability of the trip being associated with a car was 30% (e.g., the transportation mode metric associated with the trip being taken using a bicycle is 30%) while the probability of the trip being associated with a bus was 40% (e.g., the transportation mode metric associated with the trip being taken using a bus is 30%). Other modes of transportation (e.g., bicycle and train) were lower in probability”];
executing the machine learning model on inputs for one or more previous trips and have trip information satisfying one or more heuristics derived from trip information for the first trip to generate a plurality of sets of classification scores, each set of the plurality of sets corresponding to a respective one of the one or more previous trips [Fig. 10 discloses a process of determining transportation mode of the trip using classifier and assigning classification score (probability), the close loop in Fig. 10 shows the process starts with receiving trip data, applying classifier to the received data to determine transportation mode of the trip (car trip), verifying user and assigning a classification score (score car trip), these data are used to update trip data analysis module, which is then used as the input of one or more previous trips for the classifier to determine transportation mode for the future receive trip data, Fig. 10 also shows a classification score for a transportation mode is generated each time the system analyzing the receive trip data; paragraph 0075, “Referring to FIG. 10, after the mode of transportation is determined (1050), the user can optionally be prompted with the determined mode of transportation and asked to verify that the classification is correct (1052). Using this feedback, the trip data analysis module can be updated (1066). The trip data analysis module can include the various classifiers illustrated and discussed in FIG. 10. The updated trip data analysis module can then be utilized when future trip data is received”; wherein the received trip data (input) comprises trip information satisfying one or more heuristics derived from trip information such as: Fig. 11, paragraph 0082, “if the altitude is greater than 21,000 feet and the speed is greater than 100 m/s, then the classifier can classify the trip as a plane trip”];
storing the electronic signals produced during the first trip in association with a particular automobile type classification corresponding to an automobile type of the plurality of automobile types that maximizes a combined classification score for the first trip and the one or more previous trips [paragraph 0036, “In the embodiments illustrated in FIG. 1, contextual data, also referred to as contextual map data, is utilized in determining the modes of transportation during a trip. The contextual map data can be stored in a database that includes data related to transportation systems, including roads, trains, buses, bodies of water, and the like”; Fig. 10 discloses a process of determining transportation mode of the trip using classifier and assigning classification score (probability), the close loop in Fig. 10 shows the process starts with receiving trip data, applying classifier to the received data to determine transportation mode of the trip (car trip), verifying user and assigning a classification score (score car trip), these data are used to update trip data analysis module, which is then used as the input of one or more previous trips for the classifier to determine transportation mode for the future receive trip data, Fig. 10 also shows a classification score for a transportation mode is generated each time the system analyzing the receive trip data; Since the claim does not define how the classification scores for the first trip and the one or more previous trips are combined, and how the combined score is maximized, the specification of the current Application is also silent of this limitation, the examiner interprets the above limitation as “storing the electronic signals produced during the first trip in association with a particular automobile type classification corresponding to an automobile type, and the classification scores for the first trip and the one or more previous trips”, while Cordova teaches the classifier generates the classification scores for the current and previous trips, and the data related to transportation systems, including roads, trains, buses, bodies of water … that is used to determine the modes of transportation are stored, thus, Cordova teaches the above claim limitation].
Cordova does not teach
the one or more features including spectrogram data;
previous trips that are associated with a same driver as the first trip.
Cox teaches
the one or more features including spectrogram data [paragraph 0005, “methods for utilizing a mobile computing device in a vehicle to determine vehicle information and vehicle trip information. This can be used to accurately identify or verify a trip of a vehicle”; paragraphs 0054-0055, “the algorithm splits the sensor time series into overlapping segments (e.g., about 5-second segments), computes features of each segment (e.g., Fourier Transform and sample statistics) … in addition to, a convolution neural network can be used to determine vehicle … Sensor time series may be transformed into spectrograms (e.g., images) and then the convolutional neural network may be trained on the spectrograms”];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for classifying a mode of transportation during a trip of Cordova to include the one or more features including spectrogram data of Cox. Doing so would help determining the vehicle and driving information during a trip using a machine learning model that is trained on the spectrograms (Cox, 0055).
Cordova and Cox do not teach
previous trips that are associated with a same driver as the first trip.
Kanevsky teaches
previous trips that are associated with a same driver as the first trip [abstract, “One or more devices in a data analysis computing system may be configured to receive and analyze movement data and driving data, and determine driving trips and associated drivers based on the received data”; Col. 9, lines 35-39, “multiple driving patterns may be stored for the same user. For instance, a driver may have different observable driving patterns when driving different cars (e.g., the family minivan versus the convertible)”; Col. 14, line 62 – Col. 15, line 2, “the same driver driving two different vehicles, or driving under different conditions (e.g., different passenger configurations, different times/locations, different seasons or 65 weather conditions, etc.) also may have different driving data records and may impose different probability distributions on S. Therefore, multiple different driving patterns may be determined and stored for the same driver, for example, for different driver-vehicle combinations”; Col. 16, lines 62-64, “determine if the driver for the observed driving data is the same as the driver associated with a previously-stored driving pattern”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for classifying a mode of transportation during a trip of Cordova to include previous trips that are associated with a same driver as the first trip of Kanevsky. Doing so would help identifying a particular driver and vehicle type associated with observed driving data (Kanevsky, lines 53-58).
As per claim 7, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova further teaches
the one or more sensors comprises at least one of an accelerometer, a GPS component, a gyroscope, a barometer, or a magnetometer [Fig. 18, paragraph 0123, “Several sensor data metrics are computed using the accelerometer and gyroscope data”].
As per claim 9, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova further teaches
the one or more sensors are included in a smartphone [Fig. 16, paragraph 0123, “Accelerometer data and gyroscope data are collected using the mobile device; paragraph 0002, “Mobile devices, including smart phones, have been utilized to provide location information to users”; paragraph 0037, “the trip data is measured using a mobile device, such as a smart phone”].
As per claim 13, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova further teaches
the one or more features further comprise statistical features [paragraph 0093, “A number of statistical measures are computed for the speed data”].
As per claim 14, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova further teaches
the one or more features further comprise time-dependent features [paragraph 0101, “Location data measured using the mobile device is obtained and includes speed data as a function of time during the trip, represented by GPS speed (1410), location data as a function of time during the trip, represented by GPS course (1440), accelerometer data as a function of time during the trip, represented by accelerometer gravity values”].
As per claim 17, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova further teaches
the one or more features further comprise one or a combination of two or more of suspension response, power to weight ratio, aerodynamics, or longitudinal friction [paragraph 0055, “If you compare a bus and a car, for instance, the bus is heavier and longer and has a different suspension design, so the vibrations in the motion will be different. Accordingly, each form of transportation will have a different motion and acceleration fingerprint that can distinguish the trip data for a bus or train from that associated with a car … a machine learning classifier is used to distinguish these difference”].
As per claim 24, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova further teaches
the trip information comprise one or more of: time of day, trip duration, or type of road [paragraphs 0104-0105, “the mean and standard deviation of the stationary and moving periods as well as the total time that the mobile device is stationary or moving divided by the total trip duration … Using the speed data, the GPS location data, or other suitable data, the start and end times of the trip are determined (1434) and the trip duration is computed”].
As per claim 26, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova further teaches
the one or more heuristics comprise identifying a previous trip that immediately precedes the first trip or immediately follows the first trip based on one or more of: a start time of the first trip, an end time of the first trip, a start location of the first trip, and an end location of the first trip [paragraph 0039, “for a given trip, a number of segments can be formed, with each segment separated by a stop in the trip data, if a person using the mobile device is riding on a bus, every time the bus stops can be defined as a segment, the contextual data can be used to determine that one or more of the segments are associated with a bus and the segments can be marked as bus segments. As contiguous segments are associated with a bus, a stage can be formed by linking together contiguous segments to form a stage of the trip associated with travel on a bus”; paragraph 0065, “FIG. 8 provides data for a bus, although the discussion is applicable to other vehicles. As illustrated in FIG. 8, the speed of the bus is tracked, for example, using GPS data from a mobile device in the bus. The speed is zero at some points in time, associated with a bus stop, and increases to a larger value as the bus moves between stops. The acceleration data also demonstrates that the acceleration is zero at times when the bus is stopped at the bus stops and varies between positive and negative values as the bus moves between bus stops. Thus, at approximately 23:08, the bus is stopped at a bus stop. The GPS location of the mobile device can be used to provide the location and correlate these locations with known bus stops. Accordingly, the mode of transportation as a bus can be determined”].
As per claim 31, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova further teaches
identifying, from the plurality of automobile types, the subset of automobile types associated with a user of the automobile [paragraph 0033, “variety of modes of transportation are amenable to use according to embodiments of the present invention, including, without limitation, walking, riding a bus, driving a car, riding in a car as a passenger, riding in a train, taking the subway, riding a bike, and the like”].
As per claim 32, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova further teaches
identifying the subset of automobile types associated with the user based on motion data acquired from one or more prior trips by the user [Fig. 10 discloses a process of identifying the transportation mode based on the received trip data; Fig. 11 discloses a process of determining a trip is a plane trip based on motion data acquired from one or more prior trips that including if speed > threshold4, that the trip is predicted as the airplane trip].
As per claim 33, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova further teaches
the particular automobile type classification represents one or more characteristics of the automobile used during the trip [paragraph 0128, “the analysis of the trip data provides a probability value for each of the particular modes of transportation that were analyzed, for example, plane as a mode of transportation, off-road as a mode of transportation, bicycle as a mode of transportation, train as a mode of transportation, and bus as a mode of transportation”].
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordova et al. in view of Cox in view of Kanevsky and further in view of Fraser et al. (US Pub. 2015/0045983).
As per claim 4, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky do not teach
the automobile type comprises vehicle model.
Fraser teaches
the automobile type comprises vehicle model [abstract, obtaining telematics data from a sensor located in a telematics device of a vehicle, wherein the telematics data comprises data describing one or more characteristics of a vehicle, and obtaining mobile device sensor data, then transmitting the telematics data and the mobile device sensor data to a remote computing device for processing; Fig. 9, paragraph 0073, “At step 900, the telematics device sensor data and the mobile device sensor data are analyzed by the remote computing device. At step 902, vehicle make and model data is generated by the remote computing device based on the telematics device sensor data and the mobile device sensor data. The vehicle make and model data may include data describing the manufacturer of the vehicle, the year of the vehicle, and the model of the vehicle”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for classifying a mode of transportation during a trip of Cordova to include the automobile type comprises vehicle model of Fraser. Doing so would help obtaining telematics data specific to a vehicle profile (Fraser, 0009).
As per claim 5, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky do not teach
the vehicle type comprises vehicle make.
Fraser teaches
the vehicle type comprises vehicle make [abstract, obtaining telematics data from a sensor located in a telematics device of a vehicle, wherein the telematics data comprises data describing one or more characteristics of a vehicle, and obtaining mobile device sensor data, then transmitting the telematics data and the mobile device sensor data to a remote computing device for processing; Fig. 9, paragraph 0073, “vehicle make and model data is generated by the remote computing device based on the telematics device sensor data and the mobile device sensor data. The vehicle make and model data may include data describing the manufacturer of the vehicle, the year of the vehicle, and the model of the vehicle”; paragraph 0064, the sensor data analysis module determining a make and model of the vehicle (i.e., a manufacturer of the vehicle such as Ford, a year of the vehicle, and a model of the vehicle such as F-150)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for classifying a mode of transportation during a trip of Cordova to include the classification comprises vehicle make of Fraser. Doing so would help obtaining telematics data specific to a vehicle profile (Fraser, 0009).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordova et al. in view of Cox in view of Kanevsky and further in view of Davidson et al. (US Pub. 2013/0304348).
As per claim 8, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova further teaches
the one or more sensors are included in a device [Fig. 18 discloses a mobile device comprising multiple sensors].
Cox further teaches
the one or more sensors are included in a device attached to the automobile [paragraphs 0035-0037, “the MCD 110 (mobile computing device) includes a service application 108, a GPS sensor 122, and an accelerometer sensor 124 … The MCD 110 can be mounted in the vehicle”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method determining a vehicle class of Abramson to include the one or more sensors are included in a device attached to the automobile of Cox. Doing so would help determining a presence of the vehicle and recording trip data for the trip of the vehicle (Cox, 0012).
Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky do not teach
the one or more sensors are included in a tag device attached to the automobile (emphasis added).
Davidson teaches
a tag device [paragraph 0090, the telematics device includes processor, …, a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag 212].
Since Cordova (as modified) teaches “the one or more sensors are included in a device attached to the automobile” (Cordova, Fig. 18 and Cox, paragraphs 0035-0037), however, Cordova (as modified) is silent of the device comprises a tag, while Davidson teaches the telematics device comprises a tag, therefore, the combination of Cordova (as modified) and Davidson teaches the claim limitation “the one or more sensors are included in a tag device attached to the automobile”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for classifying a mode of transportation during a trip of Cordova to include the device comprises a tag of Davidson. Doing so would help receiving and transmitting vehicle data.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordova et al. in view of Cox in view of Kanevsky and further in view of Takaoka (US Patent 8,649,978).
As per claim 15, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 14.
Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky do not teach
the time-dependent features comprise autocorrelation coefficients of a vertical acceleration.
Takaoka teaches
the time-dependent features comprise autocorrelation 3544355-0049001coefficients of a vertical acceleration [Col. 2, lines 36-46, “the degree to the acceleration of the moving body in the direction of travel is mixed into the acceleration in a vertical direction in accordance with the angle with which the body is mounted on the moving body is calculated as the correlation coefficient, the acceleration direction of travel that is mixed into the acceleration in the vertical direction is calculated on the basis of the correlation coefficient, the true acceleration in the vertical direction is calculated by subtracting the acceleration direction of travel that is mixed into the acceleration in the vertical direction from the acceleration in the vertical direction”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for classifying a mode of transportation during a trip of Cordova to include the time-dependent features comprise autocorrelation 3544355-0049001coefficients of a vertical acceleration of Takaoka. Doing so would help calculating a velocity of a moving body on the basis of the true vertical acceleration and the horizontal angular velocity (Takaoka, abstract).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordova et al. in view of Cox in view of Kanevsky and further in view of Ben-Akiva et al. (US Pub. 2015/0198722).
As per claim 16, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky do not teach
the features comprise event- based features.
Ben-Akiva teaches
the features comprise event-based features [paragraph 0039, “mobile travel application 104 can identify the mode of travel and the events associated with the user's travel”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for classifying a mode of transportation during a trip of Cordova to include the features comprise event- based features of Ben-Akiva. Doing so would help improving the accuracy of classifying the vehicle type based in part on the event data.
Claims 18-19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordova et al. in view of Cox in view of Kanevsky and further in view of Harish et al. (US Pub. 2018/0061150).
As per claim 18, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky do not teach
the features comprise lateral dynamics.
Harish teaches
the features comprise lateral dynamics [paragraph 0039, “sensors 221 may detect and store data corresponding to the mobile device's location (e.g., GPS coordinates) … rates of acceleration or deceleration, and specific instances of sudden acceleration, deceleration, and lateral movement”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for classifying a mode of transportation during a trip of Cordova to include the features comprise lateral dynamics of Harish. Doing so would help improving the accuracy of classifying the vehicle type.
As per claim 19, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky do not teach
the features comprise hard acceleration or hard deacceleration.
Harish teaches
the features comprise hard acceleration or hard deacceleration [paragraph 0039, “sensors 221 may detect and store data corresponding to the mobile device's location (e.g., GPS coordinates) … rates of acceleration or deceleration, and specific instances of sudden acceleration, deceleration, and lateral movement”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for classifying a mode of transportation during a trip of Cordova to include the features comprise hard acceleration or hard deacceleration of Harish. Doing so would help improving the accuracy of classifying the vehicle type.
As per claim 27, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky do not teach
the one or more heuristics comprise identifying previous trips for which the trajectories match a trajectory of the first trip.
Harish teaches
the one or more heuristics comprise identifying previous trips for which the trajectories match a trajectory of the first trip [paragraph 0114, analyzing travel data and recognize particular trips or routes, such as a commute (trips for which the trajectories match), shopping, travel, etc. and assigning vehicle modes to particular travel segments along recognized trips or routes; paragraph 0023, “For example, a user who commutes may drive from their house to a train station, and then ride a train from that station to their office”; It can be understood that the user travels to and from work almost every day using the same segment (having similar trajectories in either direction), and a certain vehicle mode will be assigned to a certain segment (drive to the train station and ride the train to the office)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for classifying a mode of transportation during a trip of Cordova to include the one or more heuristics comprise identifying previous trips for which the trajectories match a trajectory of the first trip of Harris. Doing so would help detecting vehicle mode based on the trips that having the similar trajectories.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordova et al. in view of Cox in view of Kanevsky and further in view of Bell (US Pub. 2018/0319354).
As per claim 20, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky do not teach
the features comprise spectral features.
Bell teaches
the features comprise spectral features [paragraph 0050, “a model may be trained to discern differences in spectral signatures from a variety of different vehicles, and to identify the particular features exhibited within that data that are discriminative, so that the model may become more efficient over time …. at identifying vehicles”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for classifying a mode of transportation during a trip of Cordova to include the features comprise spectral features of Bell. Doing so would help improving the accuracy of classifying the vehicle type.
As per claim 21, Cordova, Cox, Kanevsky and Bell teach the method of claim 20.
Bell further teaches
the spectral features are associated with engine vibration [paragraph 0052, identifying spectral features that constitute a vehicle’s vibration "signature,"].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for classifying a mode of transportation during a trip of Cordova to include the spectral features are associated with engine vibration of Bell. Doing so would help learning which spectral features are most useful in discriminating one vehicle from another (Bell, 0052).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordova et al. in view of Cox in view of Kanevsky in view of Bell and further in view of Libin (US Pub. 2013/0234929).
As per claim 22, Cordova, Cox, Kanevsky and Bell teach the method of claim 20.
Cordova, Cox, Kanevsky and Bell do not teach
the spectral features are derived from gyroscope fluctuations.
Libin teaches
the spectral features are derived from gyroscope fluctuations [paragraph 0008, “Undesired motion may be detected using spectral analysis of mobile device trajectories, g-force acceleration, orientation and/or rotation parameters based on input from at least one of: an accelerometer and a gyroscope”; paragraph 0010, “identifying unwanted motion methods include spectral analysis of device trajectories in Cartesian or angular coordinate systems based on accelerometer and/or gyroscope motion detection”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for classifying a mode of transportation during a trip of Cordova to include the spectral features are derived from gyroscope fluctuations of Libin. Doing so would help detecting undesired motion so the undesired motion can be compensated to enhance user experience of the device.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordova et al. in view of Cox in view of Kanevsky and further in view of Yano et al. (US Pub. 2014/0365070).
As per claim 29, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky do not teach
the machine learning model takes account of driver usage patterns.
Yano teaches
the machine learning model takes account of driver usage patterns [paragraph 0011, “The processor makes a diagnosis on driving by a driver according to vehicle information indicating at least one of behavior of a certain vehicle and an operation of the driver while the driver is driving the certain vehicle. The processor judges a degree of influence, on the diagnosis, of a driving experience of the driver before the driver drives the certain vehicle according to history information as for a history of the driver driving one or more different vehicles including the certain vehicle”; paragraph 0036, conduct a diagnosis on each of the following various diagnosis items; paragraph 0037, the diagnosis on whether the vehicle is turning too much, appropriately turning, or turning insufficiently; paragraph 0038, the diagnosis on whether the vehicle is running close to the right side, running appropriately around the center of the lane, or running close to the left side, etc.; paragraph 0053, the result of the diagnosis by the diagnosis unit is referred to as a "diagnosis result"; paragraph 0286, the diagnosis result is classified; Since Yano teaches classifying the diagnosis result using a history of the driver driving one or more different vehicles, and Abramson in paragraph 0355 teaches the classification algorithms based on the machine learning, therefore, the combination of Abramson and Yano teaches the above claim limitation].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for classifying a mode of transportation during a trip of Cordova to include the classifier takes account of driver usage patterns of Yano. Doing so would help provide appropriate advice to a user who drives a plurality of vehicles (Yano, 0006).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordova et al. in view of Cox in view of Kanevsky and further in view of Fields et al. (US Patent 10,810,504).
As per claim 30, Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky teach the method of claim 1.
Cordova, Cox and Kanevsky do not teach
determining a driving score for a driver of the automobile based on the time series signal and the particular automobile type.
Field teaches
determining a driving score for a driver of the automobile based on the time series signal and the particular automobile type [Col. 6, line 57 to Col. 7, line 9, “The vehicle telematics unit 20 may provide the collected telematics data to a driving performance scoring unit 22, which may then calculate driving performance scores for the drivers of vehicles 12-1 through 12-N … For example, the vehicle telematics unit 20 may store the collected telematics data in one or more persistent memories of the computing system 14 (not shown in FIG. 1), and send driving performance scoring unit 22 an indication when new data is available. In various different embodiments, driving performance scoring unit 22 may generate different numbers and/or types of scores for each driver. For example, driving performance scoring unit 22 may generate multiple “trip” scores for each driver, a composite score for each driver (e.g., using multiple raw or weighted trip scores), scores relating to different types of vehicle operation (e.g., “smoothness” of acceleration, braking and/or cornering) for each driver, and/or context-specific scores (e.g., scores for driving on positive or negative slopes, scores for driving on an on-ramp or off-ramp, scores for driving in rainy weather, etc.) for each driver”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method for classifying a mode of transportation during a trip of Cordova to include determining a driving score for a driver of the automobile based on the time series signal and the particular automobile type of Fields. Doing so would help determining a risk rating for the driver of the vehicle (Fields, abstract).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Silisky et al. (US Pub. 2015/0177013) describes a method for determining a mode of travel.
Boesen (US Pub. 2017/0099582) describes a method for classification of trips.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-0103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 AM-5 PM, (CT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, OMAR FERNANDEZ can be reached at 571-272-2589. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRI T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights