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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to application 17/820,873 entitled "INTELLIGENT, DYNAMIC RISK MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION, WITH CORRECTIVE ACTION MONITORING AND AUTONOMOUS OPERATOR RISK/SAFETY LEVEL DETERMINATION FOR INSURANCE OF VEHICLES, OPERATORS, AND DRIVERS" filed on July 21, 2025, with claims 1 to 26 pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 16, 2023, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 11, 25, and 26 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-26 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment July 21, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1-26 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Final Office Action mailed August 13, 2025.
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-26 are directed to a system, method/process, machine/apparatus, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“A data processing system (DPS) comprising: a communication subsystem comprising a….by which the DPS to communicatively connect …via at least one network to receive … shipment, carrier, and driver related data
…a risk management and operator safety rating (RMOSR) module …for determining and assigning a safety and insurability rating to one or more of a driver, an operator, and a commercial vehicle, based on collected real-time data and historical data; and
…to the communication subsystem ….for the RMOSR module,
receive, …a plurality of vehicle, operator, and/or driver (VOD) data associated with events involving, and a respective safety rating of, the vehicle, operator and/or driver, the received VOD data comprising data …electronically and received from localized environmental and on- board and in-vehicle electronic …;
aggregate the received VOD data into a VOD safety record associated with at least one of the driver and the operator;
determine, by evaluating the received VOD data along with any previously-received, historical VOD data, a corresponding safety rating associated with one or more of the driver and the operator;
update a stored copy of the VOD safety record with the received VOD data and the corresponding safety rating, the VOD safety record being accessible via a network portal to at least one insurance company computer for use during evaluation of insurability and premium cost for insuring one or more of the vehicle, the operator, or the driver
trigger a …of the driver to generate and present, on … with one or more corrective actions for user selection and auto-generated tasks for driver completion, the …triggered to present the UI with the one or more corrective actions and the auto- generated tasks, …in response to receiving a notification that is …associated with at least one of the operator, the driver, and the vehicle, the notification comprising an assigned set of corrective actions;
…and track, via the timer, a response time of the driver or operator to complete the assigned set of corrective actions;
determine a safety rating adjustment factor from among a graduated scale of safety rating adjustment factors, based on the response time of the driver or operator,
the safety rating adjustment factor being one of a lower positive or a higher negative adjustment factor for faster response times and even more negative adjustment factor for longer response times and response times that are longer than a recommended response time;
apply the safety rating adjustment factor to the corresponding safety rating to generate an adjusted corresponding safety rating and store the adjusted corresponding safety rating within the VOD safety record.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between a driver, an operator, a commercial vehicle, and/or insurance provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for determining and assigning a safety and insurability rating and evaluation of insurability and premium cost for insuring recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[network interface] [to a plurality of second electronic devices] [from at least one network-connected, electronic device via the communication subsystem], [a memory having stored thereon] [with program code] [at least one processor communicatively coupled] [the at least one processor configuring the DPS to:] [driver's communication device] [a display of the communication device], [a user interface (UI)][communication device] [UI] [and to the memory, the at least one processor processing the program code] [second electronic device][sensors]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[transmit] [transmit, via the communication subsystem to a second electronic device] [activates a timer][transmitted]:
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0053] The in-vehicle sensors can be added to (or provided within) the vehicle....and/or can be added/embedded in the vehicle post manufacture, using off-the-shelf components [0056] Additionally, contextual data is also collected by other sensors, not local to the vehicle, and the contextual data is then provided ... can be received from server computers of secondary applications/services, such as data from Waze™ or Google Map™ services. [0059] RMOSR DPS 110 can be any electronic device such as, but not limited to, a desktop computer, notebook computer, or a single server.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 2:
“at least one processor”, “device or sensor”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 3:
“device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“transmit, via the communication subsystem”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
Claim 4:
“device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“transmitting the notification … processor transmits a driver notification via one or more of a text message, an email, a direct notification to an installed app on a driver’s mobile communication device, a calendar item populating a driver’s electronic calendar, and a pop-up action item within an interface of an electronic logging device of the driver’s commercial vehicle”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of displaying information
Claim 5:
“device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“transmitting the notification”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of displaying information
Claim 6:
“processor”, “signal”, “via the communication subsystem from a second device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 7:
“processor” : merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“transmit”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of displaying information
Claim 8:
“device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“transmits a notification”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of displaying information
Claim 9:
“processor” : merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 10:
“computer devices”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0053] The in-vehicle sensors can be added to (or provided within) the vehicle....and/or can be added/embedded in the vehicle post manufacture, using off-the-shelf components [0056] Additionally, contextual data is also collected by other sensors, not local to the vehicle, and the contextual data is then provided ... can be received from server computers of secondary applications/services, such as data from Waze™ or Google Map™ services. [0059] RMOSR DPS 110 can be any electronic device such as, but not limited to, a desktop computer, notebook computer, or a single server.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0053] The in-vehicle sensors can be added to (or provided within) the vehicle....and/or can be added/embedded in the vehicle post manufacture, using off-the-shelf components [0056] Additionally, contextual data is also collected by other sensors, not local to the vehicle, and the contextual data is then provided ... can be received from server computers of secondary applications/services, such as data from Waze™ or Google Map™ services. [0059] RMOSR DPS 110 can be any electronic device such as, but not limited to, a desktop computer, notebook computer, or a single server.” The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
For the step “transmitting the notification … processor transmits a driver notification via one or more of a text message, an email, a direct notification to an installed app on a driver’s mobile communication device, a calendar item populating a driver’s electronic calendar, and a pop-up action item within an interface of an electronic logging device of the driver’s commercial vehicle” that was considered extra-solution activity and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the network appliance is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component that is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 11 recites:
“receiving, …via a communication subsystem of a risk management and operator safety rating (RMOSR) data processing system (DPS), a plurality of vehicle, operator, and/or driver (VOD) data associated with events involving and a respective safety rating of the vehicle, operator and/or driver, the received VOD data comprising data …electronically and received from localized environmental and on-board and in-vehicle electronic ….;
aggregating the received VOD data into a VOD safety record associated with at least one of the driver and the operator;
determining, by evaluating the VOD data along with any previously-received, historical VOD data, a corresponding safety rating associated with one or more of the driver and the operator;
updating a stored copy of the VOD safety record with the received VOD data and the corresponding safety rating, the VOD safety record being accessible via a network portal to at least one insurance company …for use during evaluation of insurability and premium cost for insuring one or more of the vehicle, the operator, or the driver
trigger …of the driver to generate and present, on a …with one or more corrective actions for user selection and/or auto-generated tasks for driver completion, the driver's …triggered to present UI with the one or more corrective actions and the auto- generated tasks, in response to receiving a notification that…, via the communication subsystem to …associated with at least one of the operator, the driver, and the vehicle, the notification comprising with an assigned set of corrective actions;
… and tracking, via the timer, a response time of the driver or operator to complete the assigned set of corrective actions;
determining a safety rating adjustment factor from among a graduated scale of safety rating adjustment factors, based on the response time of the driver or operator, the safety rating adjustment factor being one of a lower positive or a higher negative adjustment factor for faster response times and even more negative adjustment factor for longer response times and response times that are longer than the recommended response time for the assigned set of corrective actions;
applying the safety rating adjustment factor to the corresponding safety rating to generate an adjusted corresponding safety rating and storing the adjusted corresponding safety rating within the VOD safety record.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between a driver, an operator, a commercial vehicle, and/or insurance provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for determining and assigning a safety and insurability rating and evaluation of insurability and premium cost for insuring recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[from at least one network-connected, second electronic device] [computer] [a communication device] [display of the communication device] [a user interface (UI)] [communication device] [the communication device][sensors]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[transmitting, via the communication subsystem to a second electronic device] [activates a timer] [is transmitted]:
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0053] The in-vehicle sensors can be added to (or provided within) the vehicle....and/or can be added/embedded in the vehicle post manufacture, using off-the-shelf components [0056] Additionally, contextual data is also collected by other sensors, not local to the vehicle, and the contextual data is then provided ... can be received from server computers of secondary applications/services, such as data from Waze™ or Google Map™ services. [0059] RMOSR DPS 110 can be any electronic device such as, but not limited to, a desktop computer, notebook computer, or a single server.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 12: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 13:
“device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“transmitting…a notification”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of displaying information
Claim 14:
“device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“transmitting…the notification”, “transmitting a driver notification via one or more of a text message, an email, a direct notification to an installed app on a driver’s mobile communication device, a calendar item populating a driver’s electronic calendar, and a pop-up action item within an interface of an electronic logging device of a driver’s commercial vehicle”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of displaying information
Claim 15:
“received via the communication subsystem from a second device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“initiating the timer”, “transmitting the notification”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of displaying information
Claim 16:
“transmitting… notification”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of displaying information
Claim 17: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 18:
“device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“transmitting a notification”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of displaying information
Claim 19:
“notification transmitted”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of displaying information
Claim 20:
“computer devices”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 21:
“graphical user interface (GUI)”, “database (DB)”: merely applying computer display and storage technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 22:
“GUI”, “device”, “database (DB)”: merely applying computer display and storage technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 23:
“GUI”: merely applying computer display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 24:
“GUI”: merely applying computer display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0053] The in-vehicle sensors can be added to (or provided within) the vehicle....and/or can be added/embedded in the vehicle post manufacture, using off-the-shelf components [0056] Additionally, contextual data is also collected by other sensors, not local to the vehicle, and the contextual data is then provided ... can be received from server computers of secondary applications/services, such as data from Waze™ or Google Map™ services. [0059] RMOSR DPS 110 can be any electronic device such as, but not limited to, a desktop computer, notebook computer, or a single server.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0053] The in-vehicle sensors can be added to (or provided within) the vehicle....and/or can be added/embedded in the vehicle post manufacture, using off-the-shelf components [0056] Additionally, contextual data is also collected by other sensors, not local to the vehicle, and the contextual data is then provided ... can be received from server computers of secondary applications/services, such as data from Waze™ or Google Map™ services. [0059] RMOSR DPS 110 can be any electronic device such as, but not limited to, a desktop computer, notebook computer, or a single server.” The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 25 recites:
“A data processing system (DPS) comprising:
…providing risk management and operator safety rating (RMOSR) functionality;
…to: login …via an operator portal … using an operator ID;
access via the operator portal from a VOD safety …a plurality of operator-related VOD event data and VOD safety ratings corresponding to one or more drivers and one or more vehicles managed by an operator associated with the operator ID;
generate and display, …formatted data representing a historical view of events associated with at least one of the one or more drivers and the one or more vehicles;
present, …an overview of an insurability rating of at least one of the operator, the one or more drivers, and the one or more vehicles;
present a set of corrective action …comprising a corrective action assigning and a corrective action tracking …;
in response to receiving, …an input selecting the corrective action assigning … and …the input…
present a list of drivers and associated events that can require a corrective action;
receive, …a selection of a specific corrective action from a plurality of pre-established corrective actions to assign to a selected driver and … the selection …
receive a next selection of a due date for completing the corrective action and … the next selection …
…an automatic forwarding, …of the corrective action with the due date …of the driver to whom the corrective action is assigned to display at least one user interface by an automatically forwarding, … of the corrective action.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between a driver, an operator, a commercial vehicle, and/or insurance provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for determining and assigning a safety and insurability rating and evaluation of insurability and premium cost for insuring recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[a communication subsystem that enables the DPS to communicatively connect, via at least one network, to a device] [a memory having stored thereon a communication module; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the communication subsystem and to the memory, the at least one processor configuring the communication subsystem to connect with the RMOSR device] [to the RMOSR device][at the RMOSR device] [database DB][within a series of graphical user interfaces,] [within at least one graphical user interface (GUI),] [GUIs][GUI][from an input device] [to the RMOSR device via the communication subsystem][from an input device,] [to the RMOSR device via the communication subsystem][to the RMOSR device via the communication subsystem] [via the RMOSR device][to a second electronic device] [via the RMOSR device][to a second electronic device]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[transmit] [trigger an automatic forwarding] [trigger]:
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0053] The in-vehicle sensors can be added to (or provided within) the vehicle....and/or can be added/embedded in the vehicle post manufacture, using off-the-shelf components [0056] Additionally, contextual data is also collected by other sensors, not local to the vehicle, and the contextual data is then provided ... can be received from server computers of secondary applications/services, such as data from Waze™ or Google Map™ services. [0059] RMOSR DPS 110 can be any electronic device such as, but not limited to, a desktop computer, notebook computer, or a single server.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 25 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 26:
“input device”, “RMOSR device”: merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
“GUI”, “transmit”: merely applying computer display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0053] The in-vehicle sensors can be added to (or provided within) the vehicle....and/or can be added/embedded in the vehicle post manufacture, using off-the-shelf components [0056] Additionally, contextual data is also collected by other sensors, not local to the vehicle, and the contextual data is then provided ... can be received from server computers of secondary applications/services, such as data from Waze™ or Google Map™ services. [0059] RMOSR DPS 110 can be any electronic device such as, but not limited to, a desktop computer, notebook computer, or a single server.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0053] The in-vehicle sensors can be added to (or provided within) the vehicle....and/or can be added/embedded in the vehicle post manufacture, using off-the-shelf components [0056] Additionally, contextual data is also collected by other sensors, not local to the vehicle, and the contextual data is then provided ... can be received from server computers of secondary applications/services, such as data from Waze™ or Google Map™ services. [0059] RMOSR DPS 110 can be any electronic device such as, but not limited to, a desktop computer, notebook computer, or a single server.” The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn (“VIRTUAL SAFETY MANAGER”, U.S. Publication Number: 20230154204 A1), in view of Stempora (“SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING AN UNDERWRITING RISK, RISK SCORE, OR PRICE OF INSURANCE USING SENSOR INFORMATION”, WIPO Publication Number: WO2016028933A1), in view of Lee (“RECOMMENDATION MANAGEMENT FOR AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE”, U.S. Patent Number: 11475751 B1)in view of Hammitt (“USER INTERACTION FOR DETERMINING ATTENTION”, U.S. Publication Number: 20200394116 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Kahn teaches,
a communication subsystem that enables the DPS to communicatively connect to a plurality of second electronic devices via at least one network to receive and transmit shipment, carrier, and driver related data;
(Kahn [0040] The device may include a CPU, a GPU and/or specialized deep learning processor...memory storage 114, four cameras...communication channels (which may include Bluetooth (BT) 108 and Long-Term Evolution (LTE) 116 communication channels)
Kahn [0280] a virtual safety manager may transmit video thumbnails of non-emergency video data during a trip and over cellular networks and may transmit full videos otherwise
Kahn [Abstract] for curating video and other driving-related data for use in driver coaching
Kahn [0283] “determining” may include receiving (e.g., receiving information)
Kahn [0063] In addition, or alternatively, the transmitted video may be viewable by the driver, for example, via a smartphone app. In some embodiments the video may be transmitted directly from the device to the driver's smartphone app)
a memory having stored thereon a risk management and operator safety rating (RMOSR) module with program code for determining and assigning a safety
(Kahn [0040] memory storage 114
Kahn [0036] Substantially continuous vision-based monitoring of driver behavior enables insight into instances and patterns of risk
Kahn [0088] the virtual safety manager may be considered to perform a continuous supervisory function. In such scenarios, the likelihood of human error based on temporary inattention may be mitigated.
Kahn [0102] measures may include a driver’s score
Kahn [0084] data may reveal that the most common accidents for a fleet
Kahn [0105] fleet owner
Kahn [0118] a fleet’s riskiest drivers may be identified using summary scores of each driver. In one embodiment, a driver’s score may be based on a raw count of observed unsafe behaviors.)
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the communication subsystem and to the memory, the at least one processor processing the program code for the RMOSR module, the at least one processor configuring the DPS to: receive, from at least one second electronic device via the communication subsystem, a plurality of vehicle, operator, and/or driver (VOD) data associated with events involving, and a respective safety rating of, the vehicle, operator and/or driver;
(Kahn [0040] The device may include a CPU, a GPU and/or specialized deep learning processor...memory storage...communication channels... four cameras
Kahn [0053] is associated with computer code
Kahn [0008] includes receiving visual data from a camera at a device, wherein the camera is affixed to a vehicle
Kahn [0042] video and other data from candidate events may be retained on the device, along with metrics that describe the events.
Kahn [0058] fleet may be obligated to record an accident and may be referred to a DOT-recordable event. Such accidents may affect a fleet's DOT Carrier Safety Administration (CSA) crash ratings.)
the received VOD data comprising data transmitted electronically and received from localized environmental and on- board and in-vehicle electronic sensors;
(Kahn [0040] The system may be further configured to access wheel odometry via a wired or wireless connection directly to the sensor path or via a CAN Bus. The system may also include a Global Positioning System (GPS) ... that may be placed at another location on the vehicle, such as on the roof.
Kahn [0041] The device body 200 may include one or more camera apertures, such as a driver-facing camera aperture 202....The device body may include mounting brackets 204 which may facilitate mounting of the device to a windshield of a vehicle)
aggregate the received VOD data into a VOD safety record associated with at least one of the driver and the operator;
(Kahn [0058] Severe accidents according to these criteria may substantially overlap with the criteria by which a Department of Transportation (DOT) registered fleet may be obligated to record an accident and may be referred to a DOT-recordable event.
Kahn [0248] A coaching session documentation may be as minimal in some cases as a record that the driver acknowledged a coaching session notification
Kahn [0068] the driver may create a request for a conversation with a safety manager about the recently experienced safety event.... flag the event as an “instantly coachable” event...gather relevant data and prepare a coaching session with the driver so that the specific behavior could be reviewed
Kahn [0114] A determination of accident risk may be based on a combination of metrics
Kahn [0125] Combining the driver's score and specific behavior trends
Kahn [0084] data may reveal that the most common accidents for a fleet
Kahn [0105] fleet owner
Kahn [0058] fleet may be obligated to record an accident and may be referred to a DOT-recordable event. Such accidents may affect a fleet's DOT Carrier Safety Administration (CSA) crash ratings.)
determine, by evaluating the received VOD data along with any previously-received, historical VOD data, a corresponding safety rating associated with one or more of the driver and the operator; and
(Kahn [0058] Severe accidents according to these criteria may substantially overlap with the criteria by which a Department of Transportation (DOT) registered fleet may be obligated to record an accident and may be referred to a DOT-recordable event.
Kahn [0248] A coaching session documentation may be as minimal in some cases as a record that the driver acknowledged a coaching session notification
Kahn [0168] a comparison video may be identified by use of a risk map, where a risk map contains historical accident data
Kahn [0188] may include other personalized examples from the driver's recent history that are particularly coachable, meaning that they clearly make a driving safety related point.
Kahn [0197] may include an indication of what average following distance for historically low risk drivers (that is, drivers who have proven to be involved in accidents at below average rates).
Kahn [0120] a driver's composite score may provide a summary metric that correlates with accident risk, accident risk weighted by expected loss, and the like.
Kahn [0068] the driver may create a request for a conversation with a safety manager about the recently experienced safety event.... flag the event as an “instantly coachable” event...gather relevant data and prepare a coaching session with the driver so that the specific behavior could be reviewed
Kahn [0272] a driver's safety status, which may correspond to a driver's safety score within the pool of drivers in the fleet
Kahn [0084] data may reveal that the most common accidents for a fleet
Kahn [0105] fleet owner
Kahn [0285] The method steps and/or actions may be interchanged with one another without departing from the scope of the claims. ... the order and/or use of specific steps and/or actions may be modified without departing from the scope of the claims.
Kahn [0289] Various modifications, changes, and variations may be made in the arrangement, operation, and details of the methods and apparatus described above without departing from the scope of the claims.
Kahn [0033] one skilled in the art should appreciate that the scope of the disclosure is intended to cover any aspect of the disclosure, whether implemented independently of or combined with any other aspect of the disclosure.)
update a stored copy of the VOD safety record with the received VOD data and the corresponding safety rating,
(Kahn [0058] Severe accidents according to these criteria may substantially overlap with the criteria by which a Department of Transportation (DOT) registered fleet may be obligated to record an accident and may be referred to a DOT-recordable event.
Kahn [0248] A coaching session documentation may be as minimal in some cases as a record that the driver acknowledged a coaching session notification Kahn [0068] the driver may create a request for a conversation with a safety manager about the recently experienced safety event.... flag the event as an “instantly coachable” event...gather relevant data and prepare a coaching session with the driver so that the specific behavior could be reviewed
Kahn [0280] data may be stored locally
Kahn [0102] a positive or negative change in a driver's score.
Kahn [0230] correlates with an improvement in driver scores
Kahn [0233] the driver's score increased or decreased over the course of the trip.
Examiner notes an increase/decrease in stored score data amounts to updating a stored copy.
Kahn [0278] may then maintain a ranking of past data stored on the device.)
the VOD safety record being accessible, via a network portal
(Kahn [0068] the driver may create a request for a conversation with a safety manager about the recently experienced safety event.... flag the event as an “instantly coachable” event...gather relevant data and prepare a coaching session with the driver so that the specific behavior could be reviewed
Kahn [0062] transmitted video may be viewable on a safety manager portal, which may be a website.
Kahn [0111] a GreenZone page may simply list drivers and summary score data.... a Driver Page and a GreenZone page may be the same page of an IDMS portal.)
auto-generated tasks for driver completion
(Kahn [0068] In another example of an “instantly coachable” driving event, a relative speeding alert might contain video data... may include mechanisms by which a driver may flag certain events for later review with a safety manager.
Kahn [0137] selecting drivers for coaching may be based on an extent to which and/or how each driver interacts with a self-coaching smartphone app. .... a driver who is acknowledging and watching self-coaching video content may be selected for face-to-face coaching relatively less frequently.
Kahn [0251] keep track of who was coached, who watched video, who rejected feedback, which drivers consistently reject or ignore coaching sessions
Kahn [0204] acknowledge and/or review coaching feedback.
Kahn [0267] may preferentially assign riskier routes to drivers who have historically shown less risk in such situations. Likewise, a virtual safety manager may make such routes available to high-performing drivers, who may choose to accept them
Invention creates videos and travel assignment tasks that a driver must accept or reject )
transmitted, via the communication subsystem to the communication device associated with at least one of the operator, the driver, and the vehicle, the notification comprising an assigned set of corrective actions:
(Kahn [0089] individual instructions or recommendations of a teaching system may be monitored and automatically reinforced
Kahn [0091] According to certain coaching systems, a driver should reduce speed in these situations
Kahn [0063] In addition, or alternatively, the transmitted video may be viewable by the driver, for example, via a smartphone app. In some embodiments the video may be transmitted directly from the device to the driver's smartphone app in response to a collision detection....video may be made, for example, via a user interface on a smartphone app, built-in display, and the like, that may become visible in response to a detected collision.
Kahn [0075] “bucketizing” alert types. Examples of such policy violations include failure to wear a seatbelt, certain forms of driver distraction such as texting on a phone, crossing a railroad without coming to a complete stop, or performing a U-turn.)
activate a timer and track, via the timer, a response time of the driver or operator to complete the assigned set of corrective actions
(Kahn [0140] an alert could then start a timer, so that coaching for the driver involved in the alert becomes more urgent as the desired coaching response time gets nearer.
Kahn [0182] may complete and document coaching sessions
Kahn [0203] If the driver does not access the video within a configured time period)
Kahn does not teach insurability rating to one or more of a driver, an operator, and a commercial vehicle, based on collected real-time data and historical data; to at least one insurance company computer for use during evaluation of insurability and premium cost for insuring one or more of the vehicle, the operator, or the driver; determine a safety rating adjustment factor from among a graduated scale of safety rating adjustment factors, based on the response time of the driver or operator, the safety rating adjustment factor being one of a lower positive or a higher negative adjustment factor for faster response times and even more negative adjustment factor for longer response times and response times that are longer than the recommended response time; and apply the safety rating adjustment factor to the corresponding safety rating to generate an adjusted corresponding safety rating and store the adjusted corresponding safety rating within the VOD safety record.
Stempora teaches,
insurability rating to one or more of a driver, an operator, and a commercial vehicle, based on collected real-time data and historical data;
(Stempora[0190] performance provides information for insurance risk scoring, insurance pricing
Stempora [0008] generate a risk score or cost of insurance for the individual performing the activity, such as an automobile insurance premium for a vehicle operator.
Stempora [0247] determine a level of risk 917 which may be used to determine a risk score and/or cost of insurance 918, such as an automobile insurance premium
Stempora [0217] corresponding to a level of risk or price of insurance in substantially real-time
Stempora [034] historical contextual information may be used to provide decision related information or information that can be used to deduce other decision related information)
to at least one insurance company computer for use during evaluation of insurability and premium cost for insuring one or more of the vehicle, the operator, or the driver.
(Stempora[0190] performance provides information for insurance risk scoring, insurance pricing
Stempora [008] generate a risk score or cost of insurance for the individual performing the activity, such as an automobile insurance premium for a vehicle operator.
Stempora [0247] determine a level of risk 917 which may be used to determine a risk score and/or cost of insurance 918, such as an automobile insurance premium)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver instruction coaching of Kahn to incorporate the insurance underwriting teachings of Stempora “for determining a level of underwriting risk … a risk score, or a price of insurance … associated with an individual” (Stempora [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. insurance underwriting) to a known concept (i.e. driver instruction coaching) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “better predict losses to appropriately assess risk and assign equitable pricing.” Stempora [002])
Stempora does not teach trigger a communication device of the driver to generate and present, on a display of the communication device, a user interface (UI) with one or more corrective actions for user selection, the driver's communication device triggered to present the UI ….in response to receiving a notification that is transmitted, via the communication subsystem to the communication device associated with at least one of the operator, the driver, and the vehicle, the notification comprising an assigned set of corrective actions; determine a safety rating adjustment factor from among a graduated scale of safety rating adjustment factors, based on the response time of the driver or operator, the safety rating adjustment factor being one of a lower positive or a higher negative adjustment factor for faster response times and even more negative adjustment factor for longer response times and response times that are longer than a recommended response time ...; and apply the safety rating adjustment factor to the corresponding safety rating to generate an adjusted corresponding safety rating; and store the adjusted corresponding safety rating within the VOD safety record.
Lee teaches,
trigger a communication device of the driver to generate and present, on a display of the communication device, a user interface (UI) with one or more corrective actions for user selection, the driver's communication device triggered to present the UI… in response to receiving a notification that is transmitted, via the communication subsystem to the communication device associated with at least one of the operator, the driver, and the vehicle, the notification comprising an assigned set of corrective actions;
(Lee [Col 36, Lines 15-18] such as a user equipment (UE), a base station, an electronic device, a mobile wireless device, a mobile communication device, a tablet, a handset, or other type of wireless device
Lee [Col 17, Lines 42-48] useable to alert the user to take actions in response to trending levels of:...environmental parameters; activity parameters, or location parameters.
Lee [Col 5, Lines 11-25] The electronic device 110 can include a display 140 to show information to a user...the information shown on the display 140 may include recommendations
Lee [Col 9, Lines 25-29] The touch controller 560 can receive user input from an input device. In one example, the input device can be a graphical user interface (GUI) or a touch display and be operable to receive input via the GUI or the touch display.
Lee [Col 34, Lines 60-64] the electronic device can automatically send a notification to the third party (e.g., not wait for the user response) and then request a collision response from the user to determine whether the user is okay
Lee [Col 16, Lines 22-26] job types can include ... a truck driver)
being one of a lower positive or a higher negative adjustment factor; more negative adjustment factor
(Lee [Col 14, Lines 32-34] identify trends or to identify when meeting (or exceeding) certain thresholds that trigger alerts or other actions and the like.
Lee [Col 30, Lines 12-15] when an increase or decrease in one or more of the trending parameters 1306 exceeds a threshold level for a safety event state of the safety event states
Lee [Col 19, Lines 20-21] correlator can adjust measurement information or measurement results
Lee [Col 20, Lines 50-56] correlator 1013 can use the individualized profile information ...and adjust the predicted increase or decrease in the probability of a safety event
Lee [Col 20, Lines 47-49] to determine the predicted increase or decrease in the probability of a safety event
Lee [Col 23, Lines 35-38] correlator can update or adjust the weights for the different data types using machine learning
Lee [Col 24, Lines 34-35] the correlator 1013 may adjust the adjust the types or probabilities of a safety event occurring)
and apply the safety rating adjustment factor to the corresponding safety rating to generate an adjusted corresponding safety rating;
(Lee [Col 23, Line 66 to Col 24, Line 7] The correlator 1013 may use timer information determining an expected or probable safety event occurring. ... the correlator can use the timer information to periodically request a response from the user
Lee [Col 33, Lines 9-18] The method can include request a user response associated with the security event ...can also include determining whether the user security response is received ...In one example, the user security response can be a push button response (e.g., the user pushing a button of the electronic device). In another example, the user security response can be voice command, PIN, a tap sequence, and so forth. In another example, the user security response must be received with a threshold period of time to be a valid user security response.
Lee [Col 14, Lines 32-34] identify trends or to identify when meeting (or exceeding) certain thresholds that trigger alerts or other actions and the like.
Lee [Col 30, Lines 12-15] when an increase or decrease in one or more of the trending parameters 1306 exceeds a threshold level for a safety event state of the safety event states
Lee [Col 20, Lines 50-56] correlator 1013 can use the individualized profile information ...and adjust the predicted increase or decrease in the probability of a safety event
Lee [Col 23, Lines 35-38] correlator can update or adjust the weights for the different data types using machine learning
Lee [Col 24, Lines 34-35] the correlator 1013 may adjust the adjust the types or probabilities of a safety event occurring)
and store the adjusted corresponding safety rating within the VOD safety record.
(Lee [Col 17, Lines 39-41] electronic device 1000 that receive, store and analyze measurement data, environmental data, location data, and profile data)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver instruction coaching of Kahn to incorporate the mobile device driver feedback teachings of Lee for “alert the user to take actions in response to trending levels of:...environmental parameters; activity parameters, or location parameters.” (Lee [Col 17, Lines 42-48] and “job types can include ... a truck driver” Lee [Col 16, Lines 22-26] ). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. mobile device driver feedback) to a known concept (i.e. driver instruction coaching) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “the alerter can display a notification ....to a user via a display of the electronic device” (Lee [Col 35, Lines 43-49])
Lee does not teach determine a safety rating adjustment factor from among a graduated scale of safety rating adjustment factors, based on the response time of the driver or operator, the safety rating adjustment factor being one of a lower positive or a higher negative adjustment factor for faster response times and even more negative adjustment factor for longer response times and response times that are longer than a recommended response time…
Hammitt teaches,
determine a safety rating adjustment factor from among a graduated scale of safety rating adjustment factors, based on the response time of the driver or operator,
(Hammitt [0051] “The input data may further include additional metadata describing the user's performance, such as data indicating how long it took the user to perform the specified interaction, and the like.”)
the safety rating adjustment factor being one of a lower positive or a higher negative adjustment factor for faster response times
(Hammitt [0087]” The user taps the bee after 3 seconds, hitting the contact area, and the bee jumps a bit, changes direction, and moves quickly and with a blurred visual effect toward a near edge of the display (i.e., exit path). At the screen location where he tapped the bee, “+2” briefly appears.”
Hammitt [0089] “This time, the user tapped the bee almost immediately, causing the bee to exit and “+4” to appear.”)
and even more negative adjustment factor for longer response times and response times that are longer than a recommended response time…
(Hammitt [0088] “The user taps it nonetheless after 7 seconds. The bee again departs. No points appear where it was tapped, in this case, because the user's response was sufficiently slow that he lost a few points.”)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver instruction coaching of Kahn to incorporate the response time factor teachings of Hammitt to “determine the attention level of the user based on whether the specified interaction was performed in response to the user being presented with the prompt object, such as whether the user clicked … within a specified time period.” (Hammitt [0025] ). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. response time factor) to a known concept (i.e. driver instruction coaching) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “determines an attention level of a user of the client device based on the user input” (Hammitt [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 2,
Kahn, Stempora, Lee, and Hammitt teach the vehicle insurability and premium cost evaluation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Kahn teaches,
wherein the at least one processor configures the DPS to: parse the received VOD data for information corresponding to a safety-related event involving the driver or vehicle:
(Kahn [0178] a database in which a set of hard braking events are stored along with a number of descriptive statistics. For example, a database of observed hard braking events may be queried to return events that match an event in question
Kahn [0035] different technologies, system configurations, data networks, and protocols)
access available contextual data related to the vehicle, driver, operator, a geographic location, road and traffic conditions, a weather condition, or an environmental condition, provided by at least one secondary device or remote sensor that is communicatively linked to the DPS and provides corresponding sensor data;
(Kahn [0067] data streams that may provide additional context
Kahn [0168] an alert video may have been captured near to a location where other accidents have been observed at a high frequency... an intersection with an unusually high accident rate may have a feature, such as an unusual angle to an intersecting road
Kahn [0263] an indication to the driver that relates to a geographical risk of the current road.
Kahn [0084] data may reveal that the most common accidents for a fleet
Kahn [0105] fleet owner
Kahn [0271] roads may be characterized as roads where tailgating is possible (e.g. highways) vs. roads where stop-sign or traffic light violations are possible (e.g. surface streets).
Kahn [0168] parameterizations describing an intersection, time of day, time of year, weather condition, and the like.
Kahn [0040] four cameras ... communication channels ...and integrated inertial sensors
Kahn [0035] different technologies, system configurations, data networks, and protocols)
categorize a type and a severity of the safety-related event, in part based on any received contextual data; and
(Kahn [0076] Other unsafe driving events that may be categorized as “instantly coachable” may include severe following distance alerts, collision warnings, lane departure warnings, distracted driving, weaving, and certain traffic light, or stop-sign.
Kahn [0077] One severity level down from “instantly coachable” may be a group 504 of detectable driving behaviors that correlate with accident risk, but that are so frequent that it may be impractical or ineffective to respond to each occurrence.)
update the VOD safety record based on the type and the severity of the safety-related event.
(Kahn [0278] may then maintain a ranking of past data stored on the device.
Kahn [0068] the driver may create a request for a conversation with a safety manager about the recently experienced safety event.... flag the event as an “instantly coachable” event...gather relevant data and prepare a coaching session with the driver so that the specific behavior could be reviewed
Kahn [0067] instantly coachable event, in accordance with certain aspects, a drowsy driving alert video may have captured a driver sleeping, or closing his eyes for extended periods, while driving.
Kahn [0102] ranking drivers based on coaching need, categorizing drivers into groups that include “schedule for coaching” and “do not schedule for coaching at this time” and the like.... measures of driving behavior that are predictive of accident risk...such measures may include a driver's score)
Regarding Claim 3,
Kahn, Stempora, Lee, and Hammitt teach the vehicle insurability and premium cost evaluation of Claim 2 as described earlier.
Kahn teaches,
determine and assign, as the assigned set of corrective actions, a specific set of corrective actions, from among a plurality of corrective actions within a database, the specific set of corrective actions being predetermined to at least one of (i) mitigate the safety-related event and (ii) reduce a re-occurrence of an associated type of safety-related event; and
(Kahn [0246] may provide and track documentation of individual coaching sessions, system wide coaching activity metrics, as well as effectiveness metrics relating to impact on specific driving behaviors, driver scores, accident rates
Kahn [0089] individual instructions or recommendations of a teaching system may be monitored and automatically reinforced
Kahn [0215] automatically matching a suggested manner of delivering feedback to the content of the message and/or the severity of the behaviors to which the coaching is directed. A ride-along may be considered the most time-intensive form of coaching.
Kahn [0283] looking up (e.g., looking up in a table, a database, or another data structure)
Kahn [0091] According to certain coaching systems, a driver should reduce speed in these situations)
and transmit, via the communication subsystem, the corrective action notification with the assigned set of corrective actions and a recommended response time to the second electronic device
(Kahn [0215] directed to automatically matching a suggested manner of delivering feedback to the content of the message
Kahn [0215] An automated smartphone notification may be considered the least time-intensive form of coaching.
Kahn [0143] a safety manager may be presented with a number of videos, for example 5 videos, that the virtual safety manager has determined are relevant for coaching. The safety manager may make a selection from this relatively reduced set. In some embodiments, a virtual safety manager may present coaching videos directly to the driver via a smartphone app)
instructions for the operator and/or driver to perform the corrective action within a prescribed timeframe.
(Kahn [0207] A scheduling function of a virtual safety manager may improve timeliness. For some coaching messages, coaching sessions should be completed within one week of the last alert noted in the coaching session.)
Kahn does not teach the corrective action notification further triggering a presentation within the UI of a prescribed timeframe for completing the corrective action.
Lee teaches,
the corrective action notification further triggering a presentation within the UI of a prescribed timeframe for completing the corrective action.
(Lee [Col 33, Lines 9-18] The method can include request a user response associated with the security event ...can also include determining whether the user security response is received ...In one example, the user security response can be a push button response (e.g., the user pushing a button of the electronic device). In another example, the user security response can be voice command, PIN, a tap sequence, and so forth. In another example, the user security response must be received with a threshold period of time to be a valid user security response.
Lee [Col 17, Lines 42-48] useable to alert the user to take actions in response to trending levels of:...environmental parameters; activity parameters, or location parameters.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver instruction coaching of Kahn to incorporate the mobile device driver feedback teachings of Lee for “alert the user to take actions in response to trending levels of:...environmental parameters; activity parameters, or location parameters.” (Lee [Col 17, Lines 42-48] and “job types can include ... a truck driver” Lee [Col 16, Lines 22-26] ). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. mobile device driver feedback) to a known concept (i.e. driver instruction coaching) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “the alerter can display a notification ....to a user via a display of the electronic device” (Lee [Col 35, Lines 43-49])
Regarding Claim 4,
Kahn, Stempora, Lee, and Hammitt teach the vehicle insurability and premium cost evaluation of Claim 3 as described earlier.
Kahn teaches,
wherein in transmitting the notification with the assigned set of corrective actions
(Kahn [0215] directed to automatically matching a suggested manner of delivering feedback to the content of the message
Kahn [0215] An automated smartphone notification may be considered the least time-intensive form of coaching.
Kahn [0089] individual instructions or recommendations of a teaching system may be monitored and automatically reinforced
Kahn [0215] automatically matching a suggested manner of delivering feedback to the content of the message and/or the severity of the behaviors to which the coaching is directed. A ride-along may be considered the most time-intensive form of coaching.)
to a second electronic device,
(Kahn [0203] by navigating to the coaching app on his cell phone... on the driver's smartphone, in-cab display, and the like.)
the processor configures the DPS to transmit a driver notification via one or more of a text message, an email, a direct notification to an installed app on a driver's mobile communication device, a calendar item populating a driver's electronic calendar, and a pop-up action item within an interface of an electronic logging device of the driver's commercial vehicle.
(Kahn [0040] The device may include a CPU, a GPU and/or specialized deep learning processor...memory storage 114, four cameras...communication channels (which may include Bluetooth (BT) 108 and Long-Term Evolution (LTE) 116 communication channels)
Kahn [0216] determining, for example, whether a coaching message should be delivered as a text message or an email notification, or delivered in person, etc.
Kahn [0203] by navigating to the coaching app on his cell phone....a pop-up notification may be triggered on the driver's smartphone, in-cab display, and the like.)
Regarding Claim 5,
Kahn, Stempora, Lee, and Hammitt teach the vehicle insurability and premium cost evaluation of Claim 3 as described earlier.
Kahn teaches,
initiate the timer concurrently with transmitting the notification with the assigned set of corrective actions;
(Kahn [0140] an alert could then start a timer, so that coaching for the driver involved in the alert becomes more urgent as the desired coaching response time gets nearer.
Kahn [0182] may complete and document coaching sessions from the current week on a weekly basis.
Kahn [0203] If the driver does not access the video within a configured time period, however, a pop-up notification may be triggered on the driver's smartphone, in-cab display, and the like.)
Regarding Claim 6,
Kahn, Stempora, Lee, and Hammitt teach the vehicle insurability and premium cost evaluation of Claim 3 as described earlier.
Kahn teaches,
determine a negative adjustment factor to assign to an operator/driver safety rating in response to receipt of the VOD data identifying occurrence of the safety-related event;
(LINE 1217 Kahn [0102] based on a notification of a positive or negative change in a driver's score
Kahn [0039] determining whether a putative driving event is a true positive or a false negative.)
assign and transmit, within the corrective action notification,
(Kahn [0102] based on a notification of a positive or negative change in a driver's score.
Kahn [0215] directed to automatically matching a suggested manner of delivering feedback to the content of the message
Kahn [0089] individual instructions or recommendations of a teaching system may be monitored and automatically reinforced
Kahn [0215] automatically matching a suggested manner of delivering feedback to the content of the message and/or the severity of the behaviors to which the coaching is directed. A ride-along may be considered the most time-intensive form of coaching.)
the prescribed time frame for the driver/operator to complete the corrective action;
(Kahn [0207] A scheduling function of a virtual safety manager may improve timeliness. For some coaching messages, coaching sessions should be completed within one week of the last alert noted in the coaching session.)
monitor for receipt, via the communication subsystem within the prescribed timeframe, of a completion signal from the second device as confirmation that the driver/operator has completed the recommended corrective action; and
(Kahn [0040] The device may include a CPU, a GPU and/or specialized deep learning processor...memory storage 114, four cameras...communication channels (which may include Bluetooth (BT) 108 and Long-Term Evolution (LTE) 116 communication channels)
Kahn [0011] determine that the driver acknowledged the notification
Kahn [0182] may complete and document coaching sessions from the current week on a weekly basis.
Kahn [0248] include indication of whether the driver reviewed any of the alert videos attached to the coaching session, which ones, and for what duration.)
Kahn does not teach in response to receipt of the completion signal as confirmation that the driver/operator completed the corrective action within the prescribed time frame: reduce the negative adjustment factor from a first value to a second value that is less negative than the first value; adjust an overall operator/driver safety rating to a first updated operator/driver safety rating by applying the second value to a current operator/driver safety rating; update a driver/operator safety record to reflect the first updated operator/driver safety rating.
Stempora teaches,
adjust an overall operator/driver safety rating to a first updated operator/driver safety rating by applying the second value to a current operator/driver safety rating; and update a driver/operator safety record to reflect the first updated operator/driver safety rating.
(Stempora [025] the individual is rated on a scale ranging from a very risk-seeking individual to a very risk-averse individual. In another embodiment, the individual is initially segmented according to one or more risk scores, risk scales, or risk-related categories.
Stempora [003] determining a level of risk associated with an individual comprises determining cognitive information for the individual
Stempora [0120] The requirement for safe operation of the vehicle may contribute a safety factor in the calculation or estimation
Stempora [023] individuals can be conditioned to adopt new and better heuristics and establish lower risk profiles)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver instruction coaching of Kahn to incorporate the insurance underwriting teachings of Stempora “for determining a level of underwriting risk … a risk score, or a price of insurance … associated with an individual” (Stempora [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. insurance underwriting) to a known concept (i.e. driver instruction coaching) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “better predict losses to appropriately assess risk and assign equitable pricing.” Stempora [002])
Stempora does not teach in response to receipt of the completion signal as confirmation that the driver/operator completed the corrective action within the prescribed time frame: reduce the negative adjustment factor from a first value to a second value that is less negative than the first value;
Hammitt teaches
in response to receipt of the completion signal as confirmation that the driver/operator completed the corrective action within the prescribed time frame: reduce the negative adjustment factor from a first value to a second value that is less negative than the first value;
(Hammitt [0087]” The user taps the bee after 3 seconds, hitting the contact area, and the bee jumps a bit, changes direction, and moves quickly and with a blurred visual effect toward a near edge of the display (i.e., exit path). At the screen location where he tapped the bee, “+2” briefly appears.”
Hammitt [0089] “This time, the user tapped the bee almost immediately, causing the bee to exit and “+4” to appear.”
Hammitt [0088] “The user taps it nonetheless after 7 seconds. The bee again departs. No points appear where it was tapped, in this case, because the user's response was sufficiently slow that he lost a few points.”)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver instruction coaching of Kahn to incorporate the response time factor teachings of Hammitt to “determine the attention level of the user based on whether the specified interaction was performed in response to the user being presented with the prompt object, such as whether the user clicked … within a specified time period.” (Hammitt [0025] ). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. response time factor) to a known concept (i.e. driver instruction coaching) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “determines an attention level of a user of the client device based on the user input” (Hammitt [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 7,
Kahn, Stempora, Lee, and Hammitt teach the vehicle insurability and premium cost evaluation of Claim 6 as described earlier.
Kahn teaches,
in response to not receiving confirmation of completion by the operator/driver of the corrective action within the assigned time frame:
(Kahn [0203] If the driver does not access the video within a configured time period...if the driver does not typically seek personalized coaching video on his/her own initiative)
Kahn does not teach increment the negative adjustment factor to a third value that is more negative than the first value; adjust the overall operator/driver safety rating to a second updated operator/driver safety rating by applying the third value to the current operator/driver safety rating; and update the driver/operator safety record to reflect the second updated operator/driver safety rating.
Stempora teaches,
adjust the overall operator/driver safety rating to a second updated operator/driver safety rating by applying the third value to the current operator/driver safety rating; and update the driver/operator safety record to reflect the second updated operator/driver safety rating.
(Stempora [0029] determine one or more of the following...as risk-seeking, risk-averse or a level of risk between risk-seeking and risk- averse;
Stempora [003] determining a level of risk associated with an individual comprises determining cognitive information for the individual
Stempora [0120] The requirement for safe operation of the vehicle may contribute a safety factor in the calculation or estimation
Stempora [023] individuals can be conditioned to adopt new and better heuristics and establish lower risk profiles)
Stempora [0244] generate negative reinforcement or punishment 8233 (such as a penalty, loss of discount, or price increase for an insurance rate, for example)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver instruction coaching of Kahn to incorporate the insurance underwriting teachings of Stempora “for determining a level of underwriting risk … a risk score, or a price of insurance … associated with an individual” (Stempora [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. insurance underwriting) to a known concept (i.e. driver instruction coaching) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “better predict losses to appropriately assess risk and assign equitable pricing.” Stempora [002])
Stempora does not teach increment the negative adjustment factor to a third value that is more negative than the first value;
Hammitt teaches,
increment the negative adjustment factor to a third value that is more negative than the first value;
(Hammitt [0088] “The user taps it nonetheless after 7 seconds. The bee again departs. No points appear where it was tapped, in this case, because the user's response was sufficiently slow that he lost a few points. ”)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver instruction coaching of Kahn to incorporate the response time factor teachings of Hammitt to “determine the attention level of the user based on whether the specified interaction was performed in response to the user being presented with the prompt object, such as whether the user clicked … within a specified time period.” (Hammitt [0025] ). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. response time factor) to a known concept (i.e. driver instruction coaching) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “determines an attention level of a user of the client device based on the user input” (Hammitt [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 8,
Kahn, Stempora, Lee, and Hammitt teach the vehicle insurability and premium cost evaluation of Claim 7 as described earlier.
Kahn does not teach transmit a notification of an adjustment to the operator/driver safety rating to at least the mobile communication device of the driver/operator; and in response to a request for current operator/driver/vehicle safety ratings by an insurance company, provide an updated, current operator/driver safety rating to a device of the requesting insurance company, wherein the insurance company device autonomously and objectively computes an insurance premium for the operator, driver and/or the vehicle, in part based on the current, updated operator/driver safety rating.
Stempora teaches,
transmit a notification of an adjustment to the operator/driver safety rating to at least the mobile communication device of the driver/operator; and in response to receiving a request for current operator/driver/vehicle safety ratings by an insurance company, provide an updated, current operator/driver safety rating to a device of the requesting insurance company,
(Stempora [0100] the portable device and/or vehicle comprises.... receives data, transmits data, provides alerts, notifications or information
Stempora [0145] information output from the vehicle operation performance algorithm (such as a rating)
Stempora [0209] In one embodiment, the contextual information and/or decision related information can be obtained through data sources such as portable or wearable devices....such ratings)
wherein the insurance company device autonomously and objectively computes an insurance premium for the operator, driver and/or the vehicle, in part based on the current, updated operator/driver safety rating.
(Stempora [0247] determine a level of risk 917 which may be used to determine a risk score and/or cost of insurance 918, such as an automobile insurance premium)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver instruction coaching of Kahn to incorporate the insurance underwriting teachings of Stempora “for determining a level of underwriting risk … a risk score, or a price of insurance … associated with an individual” (Stempora [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. insurance underwriting) to a known concept (i.e. driver instruction coaching) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “better predict losses to appropriately assess risk and assign equitable pricing.” Stempora [002])
Regarding Claim 9,
Kahn, Stempora, Lee, and Hammitt teach the vehicle insurability and premium cost evaluation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Kahn teaches,
maintain an electronic library of different course materials,
(Kahn [0241] may create or facilitate the creation of educational videos.
Kahn [0242] Another form of education video may be directed to bonus incentive programs.... example videos that clearly illustrate something that a driver can do to earn a safe driving bonus.
Kahn [0244] highlight reel may include videos that have an additional entertainment value)
links to specific secondary resources,
(Kahn [0203] Coaching data, which may be transmitted to a memory in the driver's app, or may be delivered as a link
Kahn [0240] includes links to alert videos)
and information about in-person courses that each correspond to specific ones of different types of events that require corrective actions;
(Kahn [0086] A familiar coaching system may refer to a coaching system delivered primarily in a classroom setting, perhaps with a limited amount of ride-along coaching in which a coach spends a day in a driver's passenger seat providing direct and immediate feedback to the driver.)
identify one or more mitigating learning materials/resource associated with an assigned set of corrective actions for the safety-related event; incorporate the one or more mitigating learning materials/resource within a corrective action notification transmitted to the driver; and
(Kahn [0241] may create or facilitate the creation of educational videos.
Kahn [0242] Another form of education video may be directed to bonus incentive programs.... example videos that clearly illustrate something that a driver can do to earn a safe driving bonus.
Kahn [0244] highlight reel may include videos that have an additional entertainment value
Kahn [0248] may include indication of whether the driver reviewed any of the alert videos attached to the coaching session
Kahn [Claim 1] generating an alert presenting, to a computing device of the driver of the vehicle, a first video)
incorporate driver completion of one or more of the mitigating learning materials/resource within an evaluation of adjustments made to the driver safety rating,
(Kahn [0248] may include indication of whether the driver reviewed any of the alert videos attached to the coaching session
Kahn [0182] may complete and document coaching sessions from the current week on a weekly basis.
Kahn [0137] a driver who is acknowledging and watching self-coaching video content may be selected for face-to-face coaching relatively less frequently.
Kahn [0248] include indication of whether the driver reviewed any of the alert videos attached to the coaching session, which ones, and for what duration.)
wherein each different mitigating learning materials/resource may have a different adjustment value applied to the driver’s safety rating adjustment
(Kahn [0180] sort alert videos by type, based on coachability
Kahn [0245] A highlight reel video selection might give greater weight to abnormal situations whereas educational videos might have a more everyday focus. A highlight reel for example...may have limited educational value but may serve to reinforce the exoneration value of the fleet's IDMS deployment.
Kahn [0246] coaching activity metrics, as well as effectiveness metrics relating to impact on specific driving behaviors, driver scores, accident rates, and/or citation rates for the fleet.)
and the driver can complete multiple different mitigating learning materials/resource to receive a combined larger positive rating adjustment.
(Kahn [0151] coachability scoring method that incorporates multiple metrics
Kahn [0251] keep track of who was coached, who watched video
Kahn [0250] a driver's coaching session commitments may form a basis of a bonus plan...reaches a target...then the driver may earn a performance-based bonus in that pay period.)
to each of the one or more mitigating learning materials/resource
(Kahn [0089] individual instructions or recommendations of a teaching system may be monitored and automatically reinforced
Kahn [0091] According to certain coaching systems, a driver should reduce speed in these situations
Kahn [0063] In addition, or alternatively, the transmitted video may be viewable by the driver, for example, via a smartphone app. In some embodiments the video may be transmitted directly from the device to the driver's smartphone app in response to a collision detection....video may be made, for example, via a user interface on a smartphone app, built-in display, and the like, that may become visible in response to a detected collision.)
Kahn does not teach transmit corrective action notification to the mobile communication device of the driver to trigger the mobile communication device to present an access link
Lee teaches,
transmit corrective action notification to the mobile communication device of the driver to trigger the mobile communication device to present an access link
(Lee [Col 35, Lines 43-49] the alerter can display a notification ....to a user via a display of the electronic device. In another example, the alerter can send an alert (such as an email, a text, or a prerecorded message) to a third party (such as a caregiver or family member) via a wireless communication network or cellular communication network
Lee [Col 36, Lines 15-18] such as a user equipment (UE), a base station, an electronic device, a mobile wireless device, a mobile communication device, a tablet, a handset, or other type of wireless device
Lee [Col 16, Lines 22-26] job types can include ... a truck driver
Lee [Col 10, Lines 12-15] the direct communication 630 can be a Bluetooth® communication link, a Zigbee® communication link, radio signal, or other direct communication systems.
Lee [Col 48, Lines 11-24] it is appreciated that throughout the description, discussions utilizing terms such as ...“linking,” “associating,”... “communicating,” or the like, refer to the actions and processes of a computing system, or similar electronic computing device, that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (e.g., electronic) quantities within the computing system's registers and memories into other data similarly represented as physical quantities within the computing system memories or registers or other such information storage, transmission or display devices)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver instruction coaching of Kahn to incorporate the mobile device driver feedback teachings of Lee for “alert the user to take actions in response to trending levels of:...environmental parameters; activity parameters, or location parameters.” (Lee [Col 17, Lines 42-48] and “job types can include ... a truck driver” Lee [Col 16, Lines 22-26] ). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. mobile device driver feedback) to a known concept (i.e. driver instruction coaching) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “the alerter can display a notification ....to a user via a display of the electronic device” (Lee [Col 35, Lines 43-49])
Regarding Claim 10,
Kahn, Stempora, Lee, and Hammitt teach the vehicle insurability and premium cost evaluation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Kahn teaches,
match the VOD data with pre-identified types of event data that are each correlated to specific safety metrics having associated thresholds utilized for evaluating driver and operator safety ratings;
(Kahn [0219] a moderate High-G event may correspond to an occurrence of a minor accident. Because a detection trigger threshold for such events
Kahn [0151] for a following distance coachability scoring method, minimum distance may have the highest weighting, the presence of a lane change may have the lowest weighting, and the duration of the following too close (i.e. tailgating) event at an intermediate weighting.
Kahn [0265] drivers who are below a hard-braking propensity threshold.)
Kahn does not teach correlate the driver and operator safety rating to an insurability rating that is assigned to the corresponding driver and/or operator, the insurability rating being utilized as an objective measure to determine a cost of insurance provided to the driver and/or operator by an insurance provider; and provide the insurability rating as accessible data within an insurance company portal accessible via the network by computer devices of insurance companies.
Stempora teaches,
correlate the driver and operator safety rating to an insurability rating that is assigned to the corresponding driver and/or operator, the insurability rating being utilized as an objective measure to determine a cost of insurance provided to the driver and/or operator by an insurance provider; and
(Stempora[0190] performance provides information for insurance risk scoring, insurance pricing
Stempora [008] generate a risk score or cost of insurance for the individual performing the activity, such as an automobile insurance premium for a vehicle operator.
Stempora [0247] determine a level of risk 917 which may be used to determine a risk score and/or cost of insurance 918, such as an automobile insurance premium)
provide the insurability rating as accessible data within an insurance company portal accessible via the network by computer devices of insurance companies.
(Stempora [095] the portable device...provides information to the operator of the vehicle...the information transfer medium for transmitting information from the portable device to the operator... display
Stempora [002] provide risk scores, underwriting guidance, a cost of insurance
Stempora [008] cost of insurance for the individual performing the activity, such as an automobile insurance premium for a vehicle operator.
Stempora [0170] In one embodiment, a method of generating a risk score, a cost of insurance, or a risk score and a cost of insurance for at least one individual includes providing... feedback to the individual through one or more methods... visual notification (such as on a portable device display),...email, pop-up notification;
Stempora [099] an insurance software application;...an insurance rate calculation or indication application;)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver instruction coaching of Kahn to incorporate the insurance underwriting teachings of Stempora “for determining a level of underwriting risk … a risk score, or a price of insurance … associated with an individual” (Stempora [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. insurance underwriting) to a known concept (i.e. driver instruction coaching) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “better predict losses to appropriately assess risk and assign equitable pricing.” Stempora [002])
Claim 11 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 3.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 7.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 8.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 9.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 10.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn, Stempora, Lee, and Hammitt in view of Ricci (“ON BOARD VEHICLE NETWORKING MODULE”, U.S. Publication Number: 20130204943 A1).
Regarding Claim 21,
Kahn, Stempora, Lee, and Hammitt teach the vehicle insurability and premium cost evaluation of Claim 20 as described earlier.
Kahn teaches,
by within a VOD safety rating database (DB);
(Kahn [0102] measures may include a driver’s score
Kahn [0118] a fleet’s riskiest drivers may be identified using summary scores of each driver. In one embodiment, a driver’s score may be based on a raw count of observed unsafe behaviors.
Kahn [0283] looking up (e.g., looking up in a table, a database, or another data structure))
accessing the VOD safety records of the operator within the VOD safety rating DB; and
(Kahn [0068] the driver may create a request for a conversation with a safety manager about the recently experienced safety event.... flag the event as an “instantly coachable” event...gather relevant data and prepare a coaching session with the driver so that the specific behavior could be reviewed
Kahn [0118] a fleet’s riskiest drivers may be identified using summary scores of each driver. In one embodiment, a driver’s score may be based on a raw count of observed unsafe behaviors.
Kahn [0283] looking up (e.g., looking up in a table, a database, or another data structure))
generating and displaying a graphical user interface (GUI) presenting a set of formatted information comprising a VOD safety rating of the operator and a plurality of additional events and data utilized within a determination of the VOD safety rating that collectively provides a snapshot of the insurability of the operator.
(Kahn [0063] via a user interface on a smartphone app
Kahn [0237] may provide an interface by which a fleet may recognize drivers who consistently achieve high driver scores over a week or month's period of time.
Kahn [0076] Other unsafe driving events that may be categorized
Kahn [0084] data may reveal that the most common accidents for a fleet
Kahn [0105] fleet owner
Kahn [0149] observations file may be formatted
Kahn [0215] snapshot of a driver's compliance statistics)
Kahn does not teach detecting a login by an insurance device to the RMOSR DPS via the insurance company portal; receiving an entry of an operator identifier associated with an operator being tracked
Ricci teaches,
detecting a login by an insurance device to the RMOSR DPS via the insurance company portal;
(Ricci [0214] Because the vehicle is web-based
Ricci [0258] other Web site
Ricci [0316] such as a web site or server (in response to web browsing)
Ricci [0152] depicts the vehicle 100 in communication... insurance company
Ricci [0223] and login
Ricci [0210] determines whether authentication was successful.)
receiving an entry of an operator identifier associated with an operator being tracked
(Ricci [0205] owner identity (e.g., name, home address, and contact information), driver's license number
Ricci [0207] the driver may agree to provide insurance tracking information)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver instruction coaching of Kahn to incorporate the vehicle networking of Ricci for “vehicle middleware systems” (Ricci [0003]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. vehicle networking) to a known concept (i.e. driver instruction coaching) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “to enable on board processing modules of different privately owned vehicles to wirelessly connect to exchange vehicle-related information.” Ricci [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 22,
Kahn, Stempora, Lee, and Hammitt teach the vehicle insurability and premium cost evaluation of Claim 11 as described earlier.
Kahn teaches,
presenting, within a series of graphical user interfaces, formatted data representing a historical view of events associated with at least one of the one or more drivers and the one or more vehicles;
(Kahn [0110] indication of sub-pages in an IDMS portal
Kahn [0237] may provide an interface by which a fleet may recognize drivers who consistently achieve high driver scores over a week or month's period of time.
Kahn [0120] Considering that historical data may show that more accidents occur when a driver runs a red light
Kahn [0069] associated data... which may include detected and tracked vehicles)
Kahn does not teach detecting a login by an operator device to the RMOSR DPS via an operator accessible portal; identifying an operator ID associated with the login; retrieving, from a VOD safety rating database (DB), a plurality of operator related VOD event data and VOD safety ratings corresponding to one or more drivers and one or more vehicles managed by an operator associated with the operator ID;presenting, within at least one graphical user interface (GUI), an overview of an insurability rating of at least one of the operator, the one or more drivers, and the one or more vehicles.
Stempora teaches,
retrieving, from the VOD safety rating DB, a plurality of operator related VOD event data and VOD safety ratings corresponding to one or more drivers and one or more vehicles managed by an operator;
(Stempora[0190] performance provides information for insurance risk scoring, insurance pricing
Stempora [008] generate a risk score or cost of insurance for the individual performing the activity, such as an automobile insurance premium for a vehicle operator.
Stempora [0247] determine a level of risk 917 which may be used to determine a risk score and/or cost of insurance 918, such as an automobile insurance premium)
presenting, within at least one graphical user interface (GUI), an overview of an insurability rating of at least one of the operator, the one or more drivers, and the one or more vehicles.
(Stempora [0170] a web based application or a report with results and/or analysis of recent risk-related behavior
Stempora [0190] performance provides information for insurance risk scoring, insurance pricing
Stempora [008] generate a risk score or cost of insurance for the individual performing the activity, such as an automobile insurance premium for a vehicle operator.
Stempora [0247] determine a level of risk 917 which may be used to determine a risk score and/or cost of insurance 918, such as an automobile insurance premium
Stempora [0217] corresponding to a level of risk or price of insurance in substantially real-time
Stempora [0233] the risk assessment algorithm 608 evaluates the historical, present, and/or predicted input information
Stempora [0167] an employer of the vehicle operator or the vehicle owner)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver instruction coaching of Kahn to incorporate the insurance underwriting teachings of Stempora “for determining a level of underwriting risk … a risk score, or a price of insurance … associated with an individual” (Stempora [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. insurance underwriting) to a known concept (i.e. driver instruction coaching) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “better predict losses to appropriately assess risk and assign equitable pricing.” Stempora [002])
Stempora does not teach detecting a login by an operator device to the RMOSR DPS via an operator accessible portal; identifying an operator ID associated with the login;associated with the operator ID;
Ricci teaches,
detecting a login by an operator device to the RMOSR DPS via an operator accessible portal;
(Ricci [0214] Because the vehicle is web-based
Ricci [0258] other Web site
Ricci [0316] such as a web site or server (in response to web browsing)
Ricci [0152] depicts the vehicle 100 in communication... insurance company
Ricci [0210] determines whether authentication was successful.)
identifying an operator ID associated with the login;
(Ricci [0223] and login
Ricci [0210] determines whether authentication was successful.
Ricci [0205] owner identity (e.g., name, home address, and contact information), driver's license number)
associated with the operator ID;
(Ricci [0205] owner identity (e.g., name, home address, and contact information), driver's license number)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver instruction coaching of Kahn to incorporate the vehicle networking of Ricci for “vehicle middleware systems” (Ricci [0003]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. vehicle networking) to a known concept (i.e. driver instruction coaching) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “to enable on board processing modules of different privately owned vehicles to wirelessly connect to exchange vehicle-related information.” Ricci [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 23,
Kahn, Stempora, Lee, Hammitt, and Ricci teach the vehicle insurability and premium cost evaluation of Claim 22 as described earlier.
Kahn teaches,
generating and presenting a set of corrective action GUIs comprising a corrective action assigning GUI and a corrective action tracking GUI; and
(Kahn [0063] via a user interface on a smartphone app
Kahn [0246] may provide and track documentation of individual coaching sessions, system wide coaching activity metrics, as well as effectiveness metrics relating to impact on specific driving behaviors, driver scores, accident rates
Kahn [0089] individual instructions or recommendations of a teaching system may be monitored and automatically reinforced)
in response to a selection of the corrective action assigning GUI:
(Kahn [0054] the human operator might choose examples based on subjective rather than objective criteria.
Kahn [0131] a virtual safety manager may preferentially choose drivers for coaching)
presenting a list of drivers
(Kahn [0106] so that the list of drivers to be coached includes all drivers having a GreenZone score that is below a set threshold.)
and associated events that can require a corrective action;
(Kahn [0246] may provide and track documentation of individual coaching sessions, system wide coaching activity metrics, as well as effectiveness metrics relating to impact on specific driving behaviors, driver scores, accident rates
Kahn [0089] individual instructions or recommendations of a teaching system may be monitored and automatically reinforced)
enabling operator selection of a specific corrective action from a plurality of pre-established corrective actions to assign to a selected driver;
(Kahn [0054] the human operator might choose examples based on subjective rather than objective criteria.
Kahn [0131] a virtual safety manager may preferentially choose drivers for coaching)
enabling operator selection of a due date for completing the corrective action; and
(Kahn [0131] choose drivers for coaching based on whether they are likely to be in a receptive period in the weeks and months following an accident.
Kahn [0139] driver has the ability to choose when to work
Kahn [0140] an alert could then start a timer, so that coaching for the driver involved in the alert becomes more urgent as the desired coaching response time gets nearer.
Kahn [0182] may complete and document coaching sessions from the current week on a weekly basis.)
automatically forwarding the corrective action with the due date to a device of the driver to whom the corrective action is assigned.
(Kahn [0215] directed to automatically matching a suggested manner of delivering feedback to the content of the message
Kahn [0215] An automated smartphone notification may be considered the least time-intensive form of coaching.
Kahn [0089] individual instructions or recommendations of a teaching system may be monitored and automatically reinforced
Kahn [0215] automatically matching a suggested manner of delivering feedback to the content of the message and/or the severity of the behaviors to which the coaching is directed. A ride-along may be considered the most time-intensive form of coaching.)
Regarding Claim 24,
Kahn, Stempora, Lee, Hammitt, and Ricci teach the vehicle insurability and premium cost evaluation of Claim 23 as described earlier.
Kahn teaches,
in response to selection of the corrective action tracking GUI:
(Kahn [0237] may provide an interface
Kahn [0131] choose drivers for coaching based on whether they are likely to be in a receptive period in the weeks and months following an accident.)
generating and presenting a GUI with a select list of drivers to whom a corrective action has been previously assigned for completion;
(Kahn [0106] generate a list or ranking of drivers to be coached for a fleet.
Kahn [0135] selecting drivers to coach may take into account the likelihood that a driver may benefit from a coaching session that is focused on a previously identified driving behavior
Kahn [0162] the driver may habitually pass trucks in this fashion based on previous training.)
populating within the GUI a completion status of each corrective action assigned, including an indication of which corrective actions have not been completed by the assigned due date; and
(Kahn [0224] messages may include:... Complete coaching, Review stats/history with driver
Kahn [0207] coaching sessions should be completed within one week of the last alert noted in the coaching session.
Kahn [0251] system-wide coaching activity metrics....keep track of who was coached, who watched video, who rejected feedback, which drivers consistently reject or ignore coaching sessions and the like.
Kahn [0203] If the driver does not access the video within a configured time period...if the driver does not typically seek personalized coaching video on his/her own initiative)
activating a driver notification and correction protocol, which informs each driver who has not completed an assigned corrective action by the assigned due date
(Kahn [0207] coaching sessions should be completed within one week of the last alert noted in the coaching session.
Kahn [0251] system-wide coaching activity metrics....keep track of who was coached, who watched video, who rejected feedback, which drivers consistently reject or ignore coaching sessions and the like.
Kahn [0071] the virtual safety manager may automatically send a notification to the driver via a smartphone app)
Kahn does not teach of a penalty other recourse action to be imposed on that driver.
Stempora teaches,
of a penalty other recourse action to be imposed on that driver.
(Stempora [0244] generate negative reinforcement or punishment 8233 (such as a penalty, loss of discount, or price increase for an insurance rate, for example);)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver instruction coaching of Kahn to incorporate the insurance underwriting teachings of Stempora “for determining a level of underwriting risk … a risk score, or a price of insurance … associated with an individual” (Stempora [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. insurance underwriting) to a known concept (i.e. driver instruction coaching) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “better predict losses to appropriately assess risk and assign equitable pricing.” Stempora [002])
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn, Stempora, and Ricci.
Regarding Claim 25,
Kahn teaches,
a communication subsystem that enables the DPS to communicatively connect, via at least one network, to a device providing risk management and operator safety rating (RMOSR) functionality; a memory having stored thereon a communication module; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the communication subsystem and to the memory, the at least one processor configuring the communication subsystem to connect with the RMOSR device to:
(Kahn [0040] The device may include a CPU, a GPU and/or specialized deep learning processor...memory storage 114, four cameras...communication channels (which may include Bluetooth (BT) 108 and Long-Term Evolution (LTE) 116 communication channels)
Kahn [0280] over cellular networks
Kahn [0040] memory storage 114
Kahn [0102] measures may include a driver’s score
Kahn [0118] a fleet’s riskiest drivers may be identified using summary scores of each driver. In one embodiment, a driver’s score may be based on a raw count of observed unsafe behaviors.)
generate and display, within a series of graphical user interfaces, formatted data representing a historical view of events associated with at least one of the one or more drivers and the one or more vehicles;
(Kahn [0110] indication of sub-pages in an IDMS portal
Kahn [0237] may provide an interface by which a fleet may recognize drivers who consistently achieve high driver scores over a week or month's period of time.
Kahn [0120] Considering that historical data may show that more accidents occur when a driver runs a red light
Kahn [0069] associated data... which may include detected and tracked vehicles)
present a set of corrective action GUIs comprising a corrective action assigning GUI and a corrective action tracking GUI; in response to receiving, from an input device, an input selecting the corrective action assigning GUI and transmit the input to the RMOSR device via the communication subsystem; present a list of drivers and associated events that can require a corrective action;
(Kahn [0282] user interaction data may be communicated
Kahn [0061] smartphone interface may include a physical or software-based button that a driver can push to trigger
Kahn [0246] may provide and track documentation of individual coaching sessions, system wide coaching activity metrics, as well as effectiveness metrics relating to impact on specific driving behaviors, driver scores, accident rates
Kahn [0089] individual instructions or recommendations of a teaching system may be monitored and automatically reinforced
Kahn [0054] the human operator might choose examples based on subjective rather than objective criteria.
Kahn [0131] a virtual safety manager may preferentially choose drivers for coaching
Kahn [0106] so that the list of drivers to be coached includes all drivers having a GreenZone score that is below a set threshold.)
receive, from an input device, a selection of a specific corrective action from a plurality of pre-established corrective actions to assign to a selected driver and transmit the selection to the RMOSR device via the communication subsystem; receive a next selection of a due date for completing the corrective action and transmit the next selection to the RMOSR device via the communication subsystem; and
(Kahn [0282] user interaction data may be communicated
Kahn [0061] smartphone interface may include a physical or software-based button that a driver can push to trigger
Kahn [0054] the human operator might choose examples based on subjective rather than objective criteria.
Kahn [0131] a virtual safety manager may preferentially choose drivers for coaching
Kahn [0131] choose drivers for coaching based on whether they are likely to be in a receptive period in the weeks and months following an accident.)
and trigger a second electronic device of the driver to whom the corrective action is assigned to display at least one user interface by an automatically forwarding, via the RMOSR device, of the corrective action.
(Kahn [0040] The device may include a CPU, a GPU and/or specialized deep learning processor...memory storage 114, four cameras...communication channels (which may include Bluetooth (BT) 108 and Long-Term Evolution (LTE) 116 communication channels)
Kahn [0215] An automated smartphone notification may be considered the least time-intensive form of coaching.
Kahn [0139] driver has the ability to choose when to work
Kahn [0140] an alert could then start a timer, so that coaching for the driver involved in the alert becomes more urgent as the desired coaching response time gets nearer.
Kahn [0182] may complete and document coaching sessions from the current week on a weekly basis.
Kahn [0063] via a user interface on a smartphone app, built-in display, and the like)
Kahn does not teach login to the RMOSR device, via an operator portal at the RMOSR device using an operator ID; access via the operator portal from a VOD safety database (DB), a plurality of operator-related VOD event data and VOD safety ratings corresponding to one or more drivers and one or more vehicles managed by an operator associated with the operator ID; present, within at least one graphical user interface (GUI), an overview of an insurability rating of at least one of the operator, the one or more drivers, and the one or more vehicles;
Stempora teaches,
access via the operator portal from a VOD safety DB, a plurality of operator-related VOD event data and VOD safety ratings corresponding to one or more drivers and one or more vehicles managed by an operator
(Stempora [0170] a web based application or a report
Stempora[0190] performance provides information for insurance risk scoring, insurance pricing
Stempora [008] generate a risk score or cost of insurance for the individual performing the activity, such as an automobile insurance premium for a vehicle operator.
Stempora [0247] determine a level of risk 917 which may be used to determine a risk score and/or cost of insurance 918, such as an automobile insurance premium)
present, within at least one graphical user interface (GUI), an overview of an insurability rating of at least one of the operator, the one or more drivers, and the one or more vehicles;
(Stempora [0170] a web based application or a report with results and/or analysis of recent risk-related behavior
Stempora [0190] performance provides information for insurance risk scoring, insurance pricing
Stempora [008] generate a risk score or cost of insurance for the individual performing the activity, such as an automobile insurance premium for a vehicle operator.
Stempora [0247] determine a level of risk 917 which may be used to determine a risk score and/or cost of insurance 918, such as an automobile insurance premium
Stempora [0217] corresponding to a level of risk or price of insurance in substantially real-time
Stempora [0233] the risk assessment algorithm 608 evaluates the historical, present, and/or predicted input information
Stempora [0167] an employer of the vehicle operator or the vehicle owner)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver instruction coaching of Kahn to incorporate the insurance underwriting teachings of Stempora “for determining a level of underwriting risk … a risk score, or a price of insurance … associated with an individual” (Stempora [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. insurance underwriting) to a known concept (i.e. driver instruction coaching) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “better predict losses to appropriately assess risk and assign equitable pricing.” Stempora [002])
Stempora does not teach login to the RMOSR device, via an operator portal at the RMOSR device using an operator ID; associated with the operator ID;
Ricci teaches,
login to the RMOSR device, via an operator portal at the RMOSR device using an operator ID; associated with the operator ID;
(Ricci [0214] Because the vehicle is web-based
Ricci [0258] other Web site
Ricci [0316] such as a web site or server (in response to web browsing)
Ricci [0152] depicts the vehicle 100 in communication... insurance company
Ricci [0210] determines whether authentication was successful.
Ricci [0205] owner identity (e.g., name, home address, and contact information), driver's license number)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver instruction coaching of Kahn to incorporate the vehicle networking of Ricci for “vehicle middleware systems” (Ricci [0003]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. vehicle networking) to a known concept (i.e. driver instruction coaching) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “to enable on board processing modules of different privately owned vehicles to wirelessly connect to exchange vehicle-related information.” Ricci [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 26,
Kahn, Stempora, and Ricci teach the vehicle insurability and premium cost evaluation of Claim 25 as described earlier.
Kahn teaches,
in response to receiving, via the input device, a selection of the corrective action tracking GUI:
(Kahn [0282] user interaction data may be communicated
Kahn [0061] smartphone interface may include a physical or software-based button that a driver can push to trigger
Kahn [0237] may provide an interface
Kahn [0131] choose drivers for coaching based on whether they are likely to be in a receptive period in the weeks and months following an accident.)
generate and present a GUI with a select list of drivers to whom a corrective action has been previously assigned for completion;
(Kahn [0106] generate a list or ranking of drivers to be coached for a fleet.
Kahn [0135] selecting drivers to coach may take into account the likelihood that a driver may benefit from a coaching session that is focused on a previously identified driving behavior
Kahn [0162] the driver may habitually pass trucks in this fashion based on previous training.)
populate within the GUI a completion status of each corrective action assigned, including an indication of which corrective actions have not been completed by the assigned due date; and
(Kahn [0143] via a smartphone app, web portal, and the like.
Kahn [0180] In some embodiments, a coaching portal, which may be a webpage and/or a smartphone or tablet app, etc., may provide an indication of which drivers should be coached… may assemble a selection of video alert data in preparation for a coaching session.
Kahn [0224] messages may include:... Complete coaching, Review stats/history with driver
Kahn [0207] coaching sessions should be completed within one week of the last alert noted in the coaching session.
Kahn [0251] system-wide coaching activity metrics....keep track of who was coached, who watched video, who rejected feedback, which drivers consistently reject or ignore coaching sessions and the like.
Kahn [0144] may present videos in a hierarchical fashion, so that an interested driver may be presented with additional, yet less “coachable” videos, after watching the first.)
which triggers the RMOSR device to generate and transmit a notification that informs each driver who has not completed an assigned corrective action by the assigned due date
(Kahn [0203] If the driver does not access the video within a configured time period...if the driver does not typically seek personalized coaching video on his/her own initiative)
Kahn does not teach of a penalty other recourse action to be imposed on that driver.
Stempora teaches,
of a penalty other recourse action to be imposed on that driver.
(Stempora [0244] generate negative reinforcement or punishment 8233 (such as a penalty, loss of discount, or price increase for an insurance rate, for example);)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver instruction coaching of Kahn to incorporate the insurance underwriting teachings of Stempora “for determining a level of underwriting risk … a risk score, or a price of insurance … associated with an individual” (Stempora [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. insurance underwriting) to a known concept (i.e. driver instruction coaching) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “better predict losses to appropriately assess risk and assign equitable pricing.” Stempora [002])
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on July 21, 2025, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“details related to manipulation of a second user device display via electronic transmission of corrective actions and/or auto-generated tasks for driver completion… The claim amendments now provide for types of sensor data that are collected electronically and transmitted electronically to the DPS for processing.."
Examiner responds:
The focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers, display devices, and sensors as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers, display devices, and sensors as tools.
The claims’ invocation of computers, display devices, and sensors does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computers, display devices, and sensor components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions on a set of generic computer components, display devices, and sensors.
Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than “merely applying” off-the-shelf, conventional computer, display device, and sensor technology for gathering, synthesizing, sending, and presenting the desired information. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0053] The in-vehicle sensors can be added to (or provided within) the vehicle....and/or can be added/embedded in the vehicle post manufacture, using off-the-shelf components [0056] Additionally, contextual data is also collected by other sensors, not local to the vehicle, and the contextual data is then provided ... can be received from server computers of secondary applications/services, such as data from Waze™ or Google Map™ services. [0059] RMOSR DPS 110 can be any electronic device such as, but not limited to, a desktop computer, notebook computer, or a single server.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
In the absence of unexpected results, changes or alteration of sequence do not make for a patentable invention, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) ; In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)
The outputting data/notifications is also covered by MPEP 2106.05(g), Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.
The focus of the invention relates to organizing human activity, it not a technology problem or limitation. Computers are only used as a tool to automate a process that can be performed by humans. The functioning of the computer itself is not improved. The computer only performs transmitting of data over network, receiving/processing/storing data, and performing calculation (manipulating data based on model/algorithm). Covered by MPEP 2106.5(d).
For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[0053] The in-vehicle sensors can be added to (or provided within) the vehicle....and/or can be added/embedded in the vehicle post manufacture, using off-the-shelf components
[0056] Additionally, contextual data is also collected by other sensors, not local to the vehicle, and the contextual data is then provided ... can be received from server computers of secondary applications/services, such as data from Waze™ or Google Map™ services.
[0059] RMOSR DPS 110 can be any electronic device such as, but not limited to, a desktop computer, notebook computer, or a single server.”
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The Applicant states:
“Claims 3 and 4 provide additional features expanding upon this practical application of the claimed invention, including interacting with an installed application on the driver's device (see claim 4), and thus these claims are also not directed to an abstract idea corresponding to methods of organizing human activity."
Examiner responds:
The claimed, “transmitting the notification with the assigned set of corrective actions to the second electronic device, … to transmit a driver notification via one or more of a text message, an email, a direct notification to an installed app on a driver's mobile communication device, a calendar item populating a driver's electronic calendar, and a pop-up action item within an interface of an electronic logging device of the driver's commercial vehicle” amounts to utilizing an application programming interface (API) to enable communication and functionality between disparate devices.
The Specification supports this notion:
[0048] RMOSR DPS 110 communicatively connects with other devices over communication/data network 120 via network interface 116, .... Network interface 116 (and more generally communication subsystem) enables communication of VOD data, including event reports and notifications, location signals and other data and/or information between RMOSR DPS 110 and other devices.
The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's amendments required the application of new/additional prior art.
New prior art includes:
Hammitt (“USER INTERACTION FOR DETERMINING ATTENTION”, U.S. Publication Number: 20200394116 A1).
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually (particularly Lee) where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In reMerck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because "[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA]." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The Applicant states:
“First, Applicants respectfully objects to the use of Lee as a prior art reference used in the technology space of Applicants' claimed invention. One skilled in the present art would not have considered Lee as relevant prior art at the time of Applicant's claimed invention and would not have contemplated combining Lee with the other references, Kahn and/or Stempora, as Lee teaches in a very different technology space. Lee generally provides a wearable device that provides and/or operates as sensors for taking physiological measurements"
Examiner responds:
Lee discusses vehicle crash sensor technology:
Lee [Col 2, Lines 42-53] vehicle monitors may be integrated into a vehicle to send an alert when a vehicle has been in an accident....Similarly, the vehicle monitor may not provide a status of the individual that is in an accident, only that an accident may have occurred.
Lee [Col 3, Lines 1-3] the vehicle monitor does not send an alert until a vehicle crash has occurred.
As such, the technology of Lee is not limited to wearable devices.
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. MPEP 2141.01(a).
The Applicant’s specification reads, [0002] “The present disclosure is generally related to commercial vehicles used for transporting cargo, and in particular to a method, a system, computer devices, and computer program product for providing autonomous risk management to promote safer operation of commercial vehicles and improve the insurability of operators and drivers of commercial vehicles.”
Similarly, Lee teaches, “an electronic device to identify safety events …use the measurement information to identify and analyze safety events. The electronic device can also send alerts to a user or a third party when a safety event is identified or predicted.” Lee [column 3, Lines 5-17] and “a truck driver” Lee [column 16 Line 26].
Therefore, Lee is reasonably in the same field of endeavor and pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
The Applicant states:
“the entire description of the sections of Lee refer to health status information, health risk information, medication information, and alert(s) associated with such information. One skilled in the present art recognizes that health related safety data is not synonymous with nor suggestive of driver/operator related vehicle and road safety when transporting cargo "
Examiner responds:
The Applicant’s invention relates to tracking hours worked to monitor driver fatigue [0055] “processes are integrated into the core functions of the ELD, which also automates the recording (collection and reporting) of commercial driving hours, as Hours of Service (HOS), to make sure the driver adheres to the legal limits.”
Lee takes additional steps to track the physiology of a person to determine driver fatigue and provide recommended actions:
Lee [Col 5, Lines 17-23] “a heart rate of an individual, a breathing rate of the individual, a blood pressure of the individual, a bio-impedance level of the individual, a hydration level of the individual, a hydration score or index indicating an overall hydration condition of the individual, a performance score or index indicating an overall effect of a hydration condition on physical or mental performance of the individual, and so forth.”
Lee [Col 5, Lines 24-28] In another example, the information shown on the display 140 may include recommendations, such as: a recommendation to take a break; a recommendation to go home; a recommendation to go to a hospital; a recommendation to drink fluids, or other recommendations.
Lee [Col 20, Line 5] a fatigue event where a user becomes fatigued
Applicant’s remaining remarks regarding the rejection made under 35 USC § 103 are rendered moot by the introduction of additional prior art.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Von Kohorn (“SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PLAYING GAMES AND REWARDING SUCCESSFUL PLAYERS”, U.S. Publication Number: US 5,697,844) teaches applying a time-consumption coefficient to a user’s score as a multiplier based on the amount of time consumed to produce the response (col 42, lines 20-67).
Sanchez (“METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MAINTAINING OPERATOR ALERTNESS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20080231461 A1) proposes maintaining operator alertness comprises a detector for detecting a physical status of an operator. The physical status indicates a first level of operator alertness. A user interface requests a second level of operator alertness from a self-evaluation of the operator at a request time. An evaluator measures at least one of an accuracy of the operator response to the requested input and a response time of the operator from the request time. An alert module generates alarm data or an alarm signal to alert the operator based on the first level of operator alertness indicating an inattentive state and at least one of the measured accuracy and operator response time indicating the inattentive state.
Crabtree (“APPLYING TELEMATICS TO GENERATE DYNAMIC INSURANCE PREMIUMS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20210035224 A1) proposes utilizing telemetric data for the dynamic pricing of insurance premiums for arbitrary and optionally multiple perils which receives telemetric data from sensors and other sources of data, analyzes the data for changes in risk associated with a parameter of an insurance policy, and dynamically adjusts policy premiums to account for individual policy risks as well as accounting for risks within the insurer's complete portfolio.
Olsson (“SAFETY MECHANISM FOR ASSURING DRIVER ENGAGEMENT DURING AUTONOMOUS DRIVE”, U.S. Publication Number: 20200339131 A1) proposes controlling a driving assistance feature of a vehicle is disclosed. The method comprises determining a state of a driver of the vehicle by means of a driver monitoring system (DMS) the state of the driver comprising at least one attention parameter, and comparing the determined state of the driver with a predefined attention model. The predefined attention model comprises an independent threshold range for each attention parameter. The method further comprises controlling the driving assistance feature based on the comparison between the determined state of the driver and the predefined attention model.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM.
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, Christine Behncke, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695