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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments, filed on 11/12/2025 with respect to the pending claims in the remarks, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the new limitations added to claims 26 and 39. See the rejection below of claims 26 and 39 for relevant citations found in Hill and Su disclosing the newly added limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 26-29, 33-34, 36-44, 46-48 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hill et al., (US 2009/0216600), (hereinafter, Hill) in view of Su et al., (US 2016/0078576), (hereinafter, Su).
Regarding claim 26, Hill discloses a method comprising:
receiving a request for assignment, by a computer-implemented driver assignment platform, of a driver for providing a rider a ride in a vehicle (= user may form a transport transaction request to be transmitted to a transport transaction service, see [0054 and 0009]);
assigning the driver to provide the ride for the rider based on a trust level associated with the driver for the rider (= one or more requester preference may be sent with the transport transaction request of step 310; and a requester preference indicating that she should not be matched to a male driver above certain age, see [0063 and 0030]).
Hill explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“controlling a first microphone associated with a first mobile device the rider or a second microphone associated with a second mobile device the driver to record audio in the vehicle during transportation of the rider by the driver in the vehicle, wherein the first mobile device and the second mobile device are associated with the computer-implemented driver assignment platform; and storing, on a computing device, audio data representing the recorded audio in the vehicle during transportation of the rider in the vehicle”.
However, Su, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitation of:
“controlling a first microphone associated with a first mobile device the rider or a second microphone associated with a second mobile device the driver to record audio in the vehicle during transportation of the rider by the driver in the vehicle, wherein the first mobile device and the second mobile device are associated with the computer-implemented driver assignment platform (= in-vehicle monitoring system 20 includes local data store 28, a mobile digital video recorder (MDVR) 30, see [0019 and 0018]; and the MDVR 30 provides Live-Viewing video and recording of video to provide insight to driver conduct, passenger conduct, vehicle location route tracking and camera functionality from any remote location, see [0026 and 0034]); and
storing, on a computing device, audio data representing the recorded audio in the vehicle during transportation of the rider in the vehicle (= mobile device 200 include interfaces 204, see [0049 and 0035]; interfaces 204 may include camera, video camera etc, see [0050]; and by using smart phone, parent can receive real-time video from interior of the bus, see [0055 and 0054])”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Su with Hill for the benefit of achieving a communication system that optimizes monitoring and notification.
Regarding claim 27, as mentioned in claim 26, Hill explicitly fails to disclose that the method further comprising: controlling a first camera associated with the rider or a second camera associated with the driver to record a video in the vehicle during transportation of the rider by the driver in the vehicle for generating video data.
However, Su which is an analogous art equivalently discloses that the method further comprising: controlling a first camera associated with the rider or a second camera associated with the driver to record a video in the vehicle during transportation of the rider by the driver in the vehicle for generating video data (see, [0018-19 and 0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Su with Hill for the benefit of achieving a communication system that optimizes monitoring and notification.
Regarding claim 28, as mentioned in claim 27, Hill explicitly fails to disclose the method wherein the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data are transmitted to a remote database accessed by the computing device through a network.
However, Su which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the method wherein the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data are transmitted to a remote database accessed by the computing device through a network (see, [0019 and 0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Su with Hill for the benefit of achieving a communication system that optimizes monitoring and notification.
Regarding claim 29, as mentioned in claim 28, Hill explicitly fails to disclose the method wherein the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data are encrypted.
However, Su which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the method wherein the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data are encrypted (see, [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Su with Hill for the benefit of achieving a communication system that optimizes monitoring and notification.
Regarding claim 32, as mentioned in claim 27, Hill explicitly fails to disclose the method wherein the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data are associated with location data specifying a location of the vehicle during transportation of the rider by the driver in the vehicle.
However, Su which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the method wherein the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data are associated with location data specifying a location of the vehicle during transportation of the rider by the driver in the vehicle (see, [0025, 0037 and 0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Su with Hill for the benefit of achieving a communication system that optimizes monitoring and notification.
Regarding claim 34, as mentioned in claim 27, Hill explicitly fails to disclose the method wherein the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data are associated with location data specifying a location of the vehicle during transportation of the rider by the driver in the vehicle.
However, Su which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the method wherein the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data are associated with location data specifying a location of the vehicle during transportation of the rider by the driver in the vehicle (see, [0025, 0037 and 0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Su with Hill for the benefit of achieving a communication system that optimizes monitoring and notification.
Regarding claim 36, as mentioned in claim 26, Hill explicitly fails to disclose that the method further comprising: receiving, from the rider, a selection of a trusted supervisor; and causing live streaming of the audio of the rider, the driver, or both the rider and the driver to a device of the trusted supervisor.
However, Su which is an analogous art equivalently discloses that the method further comprising: receiving, from the rider, a selection of a trusted supervisor; and causing live streaming of the audio of the rider, the driver, or both the rider and the driver to a device of the trusted supervisor (see, [0025, 0037 and 0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Su with Hill for the benefit of achieving a communication system that optimizes monitoring and notification.
Regarding claim 37, as mentioned in claim 26, Hill further discloses the method wherein the computing device comprises a cloud- based computing device (see, [0016 and 0024]).
Regarding claim 38, as mentioned in claim 26, Hill further discloses the method wherein the computing device comprises computing device of the rider or the driver (see, [0026]).
Regarding claim 39, Hill discloses a method comprising:
receiving a request for assignment, by a computer-implemented driver assignment platform, of a driver for providing a rider a ride in a vehicle (= user may form a transport transaction request to be transmitted to a transport transaction service, see [0054 and 0009-10]);
receiving data specifying a supervisor for supervising the rider during the ride, a computing device of the supervisor being associated with the computer-implemented driver assignment platform (= preference related to a particular transport transaction, see [0013 and 0026]).
Hill explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“controlling a first microphone associated with a first mobile device of the rider or a second microphone associated with a second mobile device of the driver to capture audio in the vehicle during transportation of the rider by the driver in the vehicle wherein the first mobile device and the second mobile device are associated with the computer-implemented driver assignment platform; and
permitting the computing device of the supervisor to receive the audio of the rider, the driver, or both the rider and the driver during transportation of the rider in the vehicle”.
However, Su, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitation of:
“controlling a first microphone associated with a first mobile device of the rider or a second microphone associated with a second mobile device of the driver to capture audio in the vehicle during transportation of the rider by the driver in the vehicle wherein the first mobile device and the second mobile device are associated with the computer-implemented driver assignment platform (= in-vehicle monitoring system 20 includes local data store 28, a mobile digital video recorder (MDVR) 30, see [0019 and 0018]; and the MDVR 30 provides Live-Viewing video and recording of video to provide insight to driver conduct, passenger conduct, vehicle location route tracking and camera functionality from any remote location, see [0026 and 0034]); and
permitting the computing device of the supervisor to receive the audio of the rider, the driver, or both the rider and the driver during transportation of the rider in the vehicle” (= in-vehicle monitoring system 20 includes local data store 28, a mobile digital video recorder (MDVR) 30, see [0019 and 0018]; and the MDVR 30 provides Live-Viewing video and recording of video to provide insight to driver conduct, see [0026 and 0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Su with Hill for the benefit of achieving a communication system that optimizes monitoring and notification.
Regarding claim 40, as mentioned in claim 39, Hill explicitly fails to disclose the method wherein permitting the computing device of the supervisor to receive the audio of the rider, the driver, or both the rider and the driver comprises controlling a microphone in the vehicle to capture the audio and causing transmission of the audio to the computing device of the supervisor.
However, Su which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the method wherein permitting the computing device of the supervisor to receive the audio of the rider, the driver, or both the rider and the driver comprises controlling a microphone in the vehicle to capture the audio and causing transmission of the audio to the computing device of the supervisor (see, [0026-27 and 0031]).
wherein permitting the computing device of the supervisor to receive the audio of the rider, the driver, or both the rider and the driver comprises controlling a microphone in the vehicle to capture the audio and causing transmission of the audio to the computing device of the supervisor.
Regarding claim 41, as mentioned in claim 39, Hill further discloses the method further comprising: in response to receiving data specifying the supervisor, sending identification data representing an identity of the supervisor to a computing device associated with the driver; and receiving verification data from the computing device associated with the driver verifying the identity of the supervisor; wherein the data identifying the supervisor comprises an image of the supervisor, a name of the supervisor, a phone number of the supervisor, fingerprint data associated with the supervisor, a representation of a relationship of the supervisor to the rider, or a combination thereof (see, [0057-58]).
Regarding claim 42, as mentioned in claim 39, Hill explicitly fails to disclose that the method further comprising: enabling transmission of alert data, from the computing device associated with the driver to the computing device associated with the supervisor of the rider, the alert data comprising an alert that the driver has deviated from a predicted route or crossed a geo-fence, the alert comprising a control for contacting the driver or the rider.
However, Su which is an analogous art equivalently discloses that the method further comprising: enabling transmission of alert data, from the computing device associated with the driver to the computing device associated with the supervisor of the rider, the alert data comprising an alert that the driver has deviated from a predicted route or crossed a geo-fence, the alert comprising a control for contacting the driver or the rider (see, [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Su with Hill for the benefit of achieving a communication system that optimizes monitoring and notification.
Regarding claim 43, as mentioned in claim 39, Hill explicitly fails to disclose that the method , further comprising: enabling transmission of alert data, from the computing device associated with the driver to the computing device associated with the supervisor of the rider, the alert data comprising an alert that the driver has performed an unexpected action, the alert comprising a control for contacting the driver or the rider.
However, Su which is an analogous art equivalently discloses that the method , further comprising: enabling transmission of alert data, from the computing device associated with the driver to the computing device associated with the supervisor of the rider, the alert data comprising an alert that the driver has performed an unexpected action, the alert comprising a control for contacting the driver or the rider(see, [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Su with Hill for the benefit of achieving a communication system that optimizes monitoring and notification.
Regarding claim 44, as mentioned in claim 39, Hill explicitly fails to disclose that the method , further comprising: controlling a first camera associated with the rider or a second camera associated with the driver to capture video in the vehicle during transportation of the rider by the driver in the vehicle; and permitting the computing device of the supervisor to receive video of the rider, the driver, or both the rider and the driver during transportation of the rider in the vehicle.
However, Su which is an analogous art equivalently discloses that the method , further comprising: controlling a first camera associated with the rider or a second camera associated with the driver to capture video in the vehicle during transportation of the rider by the driver in the vehicle; and permitting the computing device of the supervisor to receive video of the rider, the driver, or both the rider and the driver during transportation of the rider in the vehicle (see, [0025, 0037 and 0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Su with Hill for the benefit of achieving a communication system that optimizes monitoring and notification.
Regarding claim 46, as mentioned in claim 39, Hill explicitly fails to disclose that the method further comprising: receiving data specifying that the rider is a child or person needing supervision; and based on receiving the data specifying that the rider is the child or the person needing supervision, requiring the supervisor for supervising the rider during the ride in the vehicle.
However, Su which is an analogous art equivalently discloses that the method further comprising: receiving data specifying that the rider is a child or person needing supervision; and based on receiving the data specifying that the rider is the child or the person needing supervision, requiring the supervisor for supervising the rider during the ride in the vehicle (see, [0025, 0037 and 0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Su with Hill for the benefit of achieving a communication system that optimizes monitoring and notification.
Regarding claim 47, as mentioned in claim 39, Hill explicitly fails to disclose that the method further comprising: receiving data specifying that the rider is a child or person needing supervision; and based on receiving the data specifying that the rider is the child or the person needing supervision, restricting drivers that are not trusted drivers associated with the rider from providing the ride in the vehicle.
However, Su which is an analogous art equivalently discloses that the method further comprising receiving data specifying that the rider is a child or person needing supervision; and based on receiving the data specifying that the rider is the child or the person needing supervision, restricting drivers that are not trusted drivers associated with the rider from providing the ride in the vehicle (see, [0025, 0037 and 0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Su with Hill for the benefit of achieving a communication system that optimizes monitoring and notification.
Regarding claim 48, as mentioned in claim 39, Hill further discloses the method wherein the request by the rider comprises video instructions, audio instructions, or a combination of video and audio instructions for the driver to pick up the rider (see, [0054 and 0009-10]).
Regarding claim 50, as mentioned in claim 39, Hill further discloses the method wherein the driver is assigned based on a trust level of the driver, the trust level being based on one or more metrics of trust including a trust tier of the driver for the rider (see, [0063 and 0030]).
3. Claims 30-32, 35, 45 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hill and Su in view of Wintzell et al., (US 2015/0071606), (hereinafter, Wintzell).
Regarding claim 30, as mentioned in claim 28, the combination of Hill and Sue explicitly fails to disclose the method, wherein the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data are accessible at the remote database based on providing a password to the computer-implemented driver assignment platform.
However, Wintzell which is an analogous art equivalently, discloses the method, wherein the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data are accessible at the remote database based on providing a password to the computer-implemented driver assignment platform (see, [0046, 0048 and 0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Wintzell with Hill and Su for the benefit of achieving a communication system enables playback of a scene including overlapping motion video recordings without downloading all the overlapping motion video data thereby enabling reduction in network load due to transmission of motion video recording.
Regarding claim 31, as mentioned in claim 27, the combination of Hill and Sue explicitly fails to disclose that the method, further comprising: determining a data storage limitation or a data transmission limitation associated with the computing device; and controlling, based on the determining, a quality of the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data by upscaling or downscaling a resolution of the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data.
However, Wintzell which is an analogous art equivalently, discloses the method, further comprising: determining a data storage limitation or a data transmission limitation associated with the computing device; and controlling, based on the determining, a quality of the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data by upscaling or downscaling a resolution of the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data (see, [0011 and 0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Wintzell with Hill and Su for the benefit of achieving a communication system enables playback of a scene including overlapping motion video recordings without downloading all the overlapping motion video data thereby enabling reduction in network load due to transmission of motion video recording.
Regarding claim 32, as mentioned in claim 31, the combination of Hill and Sue explicitly fails to disclose the method, wherein determining the data storage limitation or the data transmission limitation comprises: receiving metadata associated with the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data, the metadata comprising at least one of a bit rate, a resolution parameter, a file size parameter, and a file length parameter; and determining, based on the metadata, the quality of the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data.
However, Wintzell which is an analogous art equivalently, discloses the method, wherein determining the data storage limitation or the data transmission limitation comprises: receiving metadata associated with the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data, the metadata comprising at least one of a bit rate, a resolution parameter, a file size parameter, and a file length parameter; and determining, based on the metadata, the quality of the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data (see, [0011 and 0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Wintzell with Hill and Su for the benefit of achieving a communication system enables playback of a scene including overlapping motion video recordings without downloading all the overlapping motion video data thereby enabling reduction in network load due to transmission of motion video recording.
Regarding claim 35, as mentioned in claim 27, the combination of Hill and Sue explicitly fails to disclose that the method, further comprising: obtaining one or more application rules associated with the computer-implemented driver assignment platform specifying a time for deleting the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data; and automatically deleting the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data based on the one or more application rules.
However, Wintzell which is an analogous art equivalently, discloses that the method, further comprising: obtaining one or more application rules associated with the computer-implemented driver assignment platform specifying a time for deleting the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data; and automatically deleting the audio data, the video data, or both the audio data and the video data based on the one or more application rules (see, [0077 and 0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Wintzell with Hill and Su for the benefit of achieving a communication system enables playback of a scene including overlapping motion video recordings without downloading all the overlapping motion video data thereby enabling reduction in network load due to transmission of motion video recording.
Regarding claim 45, as mentioned in claim 39, the combination of Hill and Sue explicitly fails to disclose that the method, further comprising: controlling a quality of the audio or a video of the rider by upscaling or downscaling a resolution of the audio or the video responsive to a data storage limitation or a data transmission limitation.
However, Wintzell which is an analogous art equivalently, discloses that the method, further comprising: controlling a quality of the audio or a video of the rider by upscaling or downscaling a resolution of the audio or the video responsive to a data storage limitation or a data transmission limitation (see, [0011 and 0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Wintzell with Hill and Su for the benefit of achieving a communication system enables playback of a scene including overlapping motion video recordings without downloading all the overlapping motion video data thereby enabling reduction in network load due to transmission of motion video recording.
Regarding claim 49, as mentioned in claim 39, the combination of Hill and Sue explicitly fails to disclose that the method, further comprising: controlling a quality of the audio or a video of the rider by upscaling or downscaling a resolution of the audio or the video responsive to a data storage limitation, or a data transmission limitation.
However, Wintzell which is an analogous art equivalently, discloses that the method, further comprising: controlling a quality of the audio or a video of the rider by upscaling or downscaling a resolution of the audio or the video responsive to a data storage limitation, or a data transmission limitation (see, [0011 and 0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Wintzell with Hill and Su for the benefit of achieving a communication system enables playback of a scene including overlapping motion video recordings without downloading all the overlapping motion video data thereby enabling reduction in network load due to transmission of motion video recording.
CONCLUSION
4. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of 33the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kwasi Karikari whose telephone number is
571-272-8566.The examiner can normally be reached on M-Sat (6am – 10pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8566.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.