DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 06/13/2025 has been entered.
3. Currently claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 18 and 19 have been amended; claims 5, 6, 8 have been canceled; and new claims 20 and 21 have been added. Therefore, claims 1-4, 7 and 9-21 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1-4, 7 and 9-21 are objected to at least for the flowing reason: each of claims 1, 18 and 19 recites, “determining a total driver score for the driver by from the plurality of segment scores” (emphasis added).
However, the phrase “by from” appears to be a typographical error for “from”; and therefore, appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
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, 7 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1, 18 and 19, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
receive information [regarding] driver data associated with one or more driving behaviors; receive location information; determine a plurality of segment scores for a driver based on trip data associated with one or more driving trips; wherein the segment scores indicate a comparison between one or more trip event and behavior
features of a first trip segment and one or more population features of one or more populations, wherein each population is associated with one or more population characteristics and one or more population features that are common among the trip data, the population features representing an average number of events for each event type normalized to a particular trip distance; determine a total driver score for the driver by from the plurality of segment scores; collect trip data for the driver, collection of trip data occurs when the [driver] is on-duty: a score meter on a score page, the score meter comprising a multi-colored graduated bar; an indicator on the score meter, the indicator representing the total driver score for the driver a driver total score indicator comprising a value between 0 and 100 that corresponds to the total driver score; and adjacent to the driver total score indicator, a change indicator comprising another value between 0 and 100 that represents a change in the total driver score from a previous week; compare the total driver score to a target driver score; and [present] an alert responsive to a determination that the total driver score is less than the target driver score.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
For instance, the current claims correspond to managing personal behavior; such as teaching, wherein a driver’s performance is evaluated, based on data collected regarding the driving behaviors and location; and thereby one or more scores, which reflect the driver’s performance, are presented to the driver; and furthermore, an alert is presented to the driver when the driver’s performance is below a target score, etc.
Similarly, given the limitations that recite one or more evaluation tasks/steps; such as: determining a plurality of segment scores for a driver based on trip data associated with one or more driving trips, wherein the segment scores indicate a comparison between one or more trip event and behavior features of a first trip segment and one or more population features of one or more populations; determining a total driver score for the driver from the plurality of segment scores, etc., the claims also overlap with the group mental processes—such as, an observation, an evaluation and/or a judgment process, etc.
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-Two
The claims recite additional elements, wherein a computing device that comprises a processor and a display is utilized to facilitate the process of: collecting information regarding a driver (e.g., “receiving information from one or more first sensors, driver data associated with one or more driving behaviors; receiving location information from one or more second sensors”); analyzing the collected information to determine one or more results (e.g., “determining a plurality of segment scores for a driver based on trip data associated with one or more driving trips from the one or more first sensors and the one or more second sensors . . . determining a total driver score for the driver by from the plurality of segment scores”); displaying a virtual key, including relevant information, to the user (e.g., displaying: “a soft-key selector switch to allow the driver to select and indicate whether the driver is on-duty or off-duty, the soft-key selector switch controlling a collection of trip data for the driver, wherein the collection of trip data occurs when the soft-key selector switch is set to on-duty; a score meter on the score page, the score meter comprising a multi-colored graduated bar; an indicator on the score meter, the indicator representing the total driver score”; “a driver total score indicator comprising a value between 0 and 100 that corresponds to the total driver score; and adjacent to the driver total score indicator, a change indicator comprising another value between 0 and 100 that represents a change in the total driver score from a previous week”); and generating pertinent feedback to the user based on analyzing/comparing results (e.g., “comparing the total driver score to a target driver score; and generating an alert responsive to a determination that the total driver score is less than the target driver score”), etc.
However, the claimed additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, when each claim is considered as a whole, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since they fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. Accordingly, none of the current claims recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an “inventive concept”.
It is worth to note that the use of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate the delivery of pertinent information to a driver; such as, (i) collecting data related to the driving behavior of the driver using a commercially available device (e.g., a tablet, a PDA, a mobile phone, etc.), (ii) and presenting audio and/or visual information to the driver (e.g. one or more scores and/or coaching tips, etc.), is already directed to a well-understood, routine or conventional activity in the art (e.g. see US 2014/0098060; US 2011/0307188; US 2013/0046510, etc.).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-4, 7, 9-17, 20 and 21). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element/function utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, when considered as a whole, none of the current claims is implementing a claim element—or a combination of claim elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., no element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology).
► Applicant’s arguments directed to section §101 have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 06/13/2025). Particularly, while attempting to summarize the Office’s eligibility analysis, Applicant asserts that “the amended claims are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For example, the independent claims have been amended to include various technical components (e.g., one or more first sensors that indicate driver data associated with one or more driving behaviors and one or more second sensors that indicate location information). In addition, the independent claims provide meaningful limitations [that] do not monopolize any judicial exception. For example, the independent claims recite ‘a comparison between one or more trip event and behavior features of a first trip segment and one or more population features . . . which are more than linking the allegedly abstract ideas of managing personal behavior or mental processes and instead provide specific mechanisms that are used when linking any judicial exception ‘determining a plurality of segment scores for a driver based on trip data associated with one or more driving trips from the one or more first sensors and the one or more second sensors . . . a determination that the total driver score is less than the target driver score.’ Accordingly, the claims are directed to eligible subject matter” (emphasis added).
However, except for summarizing the current limitations, Applicant does not demonstrate an element (if any)—or a combination of elements (if any)—that renders any of the current claims beyond an abstract idea. For instance, Applicant points out the sensors currently recited—namely, (i) the first sensors for receiving driver data associated with one or more driving behaviors, and (ii) the second sensors for receiving location information. However, the sensors above are recited at a high level of generality. Particularly, the claims do not recite any specific structural and/or functional features related to the sensors, much less an advanced structural and/or functional feature(s) that arguably provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. Of course, given such lack of technological improvement, the sensors are utilized merely for data gathering purpose; and this is insignificant extra-solution activity.
In addition, the eligibility test is not limited merely to a claim that attempts to monopolize a judicial exception(s). Accordingly, even assuming arguendo that the current claims do not monopolize an abstract idea, such assumption is not sufficient to demonstrate whether any of the current claims is patent-eligible.
It is also noted that Applicant is attempting to substantiate the alleged meaningful limitations while relying on the abstract idea; such as, comparing trip event and behavior features of a first trip segment and population features of one or more populations, wherein each population is associated with one or more population characteristics, etc. In contrast, a claim is considered to impose meaningful limitations on practicing a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea) when the claim is implementing a claim element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. In the instant case, none of the claims, including the original disclosure, implements an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. Instead, each of the current claims, including the original disclosure, is relying on the existing computer/network technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate an abstract idea. Thus, Applicant’s conclusory assertion, “[the claims] recite a practical application of evaluating a driver based on situationally relevant circumstances, providing a more comprehensive evaluation of the driver which cannot be done objectively by a human”, is not persuasive. Particularly, when applying the eligibility test regarding a mental process, a human—such as a driving instructor—can evaluate the deriver’s performance at least using a pen and paper. For instance, the instructor may use a chart (e.g. a template) that correlates one or more driving attributes and/or road segments with one or more scores; and accordingly, based on observing and/or analyzing the trip data gathered regarding the current driver, the instructor may estimate—using a pen and paper—one or more segment scores, including a total score, etc. Of course, the instructor may also provide the driver, based on comparing the driver’s total score with a target score, a relevant verbal and/or written alert when the total score is less than the target score, etc.
The observation above confirms that the current claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea (i.e., a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity).
Thus, at least for the reasons discussed above, the Office concludes that none of the current claims—when considered as whole—provides an inventive concept that amounts to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C.112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C.112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
● Claims 1-4, 7 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(b), or second paragraph (pre-AIA ), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Each of claims 1, 18 and 19 recites, “displaying . . . an indicator on the score meter, the indicator representing the total driver score . . . a driver total score indicator” (emphasis added).
However, it is unclear whether the limitation above is implying two different indicators, each indicating the driver’s total score. Thus, the claims are ambiguous at least for the above reason.
In addition, given the sequence of steps currently recited per each of claims 1, 18 and 19, it is unclear whether the claimed method/device is starting the process of collecting trip data (e.g., “receiving information from one or more first sensors, driver data associated with one or more driving behaviors; receiving location information from one or more second sensors”, etc.) prior to displaying the soft-key selector switch, which the driver must activate in order to trigger the process of collecting trip data (e.g., see the limitation, “displaying . . . a soft-key selector switch to allow a driver to select and indicate . . . wherein the collection of trip data occurs when the soft-key selector switch is set to on-duty”, emphasis added). Accordingly, the current claims are further ambiguous due to the above reason.
Prior Art.
7. Considering each of claims 1, 18 and 19 as a whole (including the dependent claims), the prior art does not teach or suggest the current claims (regarding the state of the prior art, see the office-action dated 06/21/2024).
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715