Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's reply and remarks of 01/30/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1 – 8 and 20 – 31 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 21 have not remedied the deficiencies previously discussed regarding the failure to comply with the written description requirement. This previous rejection for all claims is maintained and further explanation is included below.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 8 and 20 – 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Newly amended claims 1 and 21 recite: “processing the updated data to detect an error in the updated data”, “initiating a mechanism for handling the error, wherein the mechanism comprises one or more actions to correct the error”, and, “in response to initiating the mechanism, receiving corrected updated data from the device associated with the driver account”. These method steps would need to rely on disclosed steps or components that are able to perform these actions. However, Applicant’s cite to the disclosure to show support for these actions are not effective. The Examiner notes that paragraphs [0026] and [0428-0431] do not provide any written description of a system or components able to “detect” or “initiate a mechanism for handling the error”. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that these claim elements are failing to comply with the written description requirement. The Examiner’s conclusion is further supported by Applicant’s disclosure at paragraph [0433]: “…the system should be able to detect the error and offer simple, comprehensible mechanisms for handling the error.” (Emphasis added). Use of “should” here is best interpreted to align with provisions of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) that indicate the disclosure sets forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. A reasonable interpretation is that the Applicant would like the system to handle some sort of error, but Applicant does not convey the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms.
Dependent claims 2 – 8 and 22 – 31 inherit this deficiency based upon on their dependencies to claims 1 and 21. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the conclusion that all claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 – 8 and 20 – 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of eligibility analysis, the instant claims are directed towards a method and a system; thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of eligibility analysis, the claims set forth a method for collecting, managing, and sharing information about a driver, with third parties. This is expressive of business relations among drivers, their fleet managers, and third parties such as federal regulators. Therefore, the claims describe commercial or legal interactions, which are certain methods of organizing human activity, and recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of claim 21, contains those elements that define the abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method of managing an electronic driver user profile, the method comprising:
generating a driver record of a driver;
sending, by a network, the driver record to a data management platform to associate the driver record with a driver account of the driver;
receiving, from a first third-party computing device, a first request for a data package associated with the driver account, wherein the first third-party computing device is associated with a first entity profile of the data management platform;
generating, in response to the first request for the data package, a response based on the driver record associated with the driver account of the driver;
providing the response to the first third-party computing device;
receiving, updated data from a device associated with a driver account, wherein the updated data comprises a picture of a document captured via a camera associated with the driver device;
processing the updated data to detect an error in the updated data;
initiating a mechanism for handling the error, wherein the mechanism comprises one or more actions to correct the error;
in response to initiating the mechanism, receiving corrected updated data from the device associated with the driver account;
updating, at a cloud network, the driver record based upon receiving the corrected updated data from the device associated with the driver account, wherein the corrected updated data relates to at least one of the driver or a vehicle operated by the driver;
receiving, from a second third-party computing device, a second request for the data package associated with the driver account, wherein the second third-party computing device is associated with a second entity profile of the data management platform that is different than the first entity profile of the first request;
generating, in response to the second request, a response comprising an updated data package for the driver account based on the corrected updated data; and
providing, to the second third-party computing device, the updated data package for the driver account.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1 and 21 recite only the following additional elements:
a cloud network;
a data management platform, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions;
computing device(s);
a camera associated with the device;
an electronic logging device.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0059 – 0066, 0075, and 0092 – 0101], as filed. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (a cloud network; a data management platform, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions; computing device(s); a camera associated with the driver device; an electronic logging device), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and a results-oriented solution that lacks detail of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2 – 8 and 20 contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. They recite certain information directly germane to the driver or vehicle, and thus, are directed to the abstract idea of commercial or legal interactions, which are certain methods of organizing human activity. Further, these claims rely on mere instructions to apply the exception within a computer environment (using devices via a cloud network) as defined above. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04)(d). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 22 – 31 contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 21. They mention information directly germane to the driver or vehicle, and thus, are directed to the abstract idea of commercial or legal interactions, which are certain methods of organizing human activity. Further, these claims rely on mere instructions to apply the exception within a computer environment, (the system and wirelessly) defined above. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Therefore, for the reasons set above, claims 1 – 8 and 20 – 31, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 6, 20 – 29, and 31, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (US 2018/0308295), in view of Mundt (US 2015/0248677), in view of Walton (20160358129), further in view of Kwak (20190236510), hereinafter Kwak ‘510.
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Kwak discloses: generating a driver record of a driver; (see [0048], where it is disclosed an ELD generates a record of driver activity); sending, by a network, the driver record to a data management platform to associate the driver record with a driver account of the driver; (at [0090] the ELD tracks authenticated driver data per registered drivers. Further, at [0008] the driver-specific logs are communicated via a network to all various devices).
Further regarding claim 21, Kwak discloses: an electronic logging device configured to generate vehicle data associated with a vehicle operated by a driver; (see [0008] detailing a “vehicle electronic logging device (ELD) connected to the vehicle OBD device, wherein the vehicle ELD is configured to generate at least one of driver-specific ELD log and a driver vehicle inspection report (DVIR) that contains a currently logged-in driver's on-duty, off-duty], and resting activities associated with the vehicle and descriptions, issues, and items identifying potential repair or maintenance needs for the vehicle…”); a data management platform device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions; (at [0081-0082], the system is described analogous to the data management platform within the instant application. See also Fig 8); a driver computing device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions; (see [0008]: “The server computer has a computer program embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium that when executed causes the server computer to receive … a driver data for the specified driver of the one or more drivers, store and log the driver data in the driver qualification file for the specified driver…”).
Not disclosed by Kwak is:
a) receiving, from a first third-party computing device, a first request for a data package associated with the driver account, wherein the first third-party computing device is associated with a first entity profile of the data management platform:
b) generating, in response to the first request for the data package, a response based on the driver record associated with the driver account of the driver;
c) providing the response to the first third-party computing device:
d) updating, at the cloud network, the driver record based upon receiving updated data from a device associated with the driver account, wherein the updated data relates to at least one of the driver or a vehicle operated by the driver;
e) receiving, from a second third-party computing device, a second request, for the data package associated with the driver account, wherein the second third-party computing device is associated with a second entity profile of the data management platform that is different than the first entity profile of the first request;
f) generating, in response to the second request, a response comprising an updated data package for the driver account based on the received updated data; and,
g) providing, to the second third-party computing device, the updated data package for the driver account.
However, Mundt discloses a transportation compliance system and teaches all the elements above. Regarding items a – c, and e – g, above, Mundt’s method includes a driver file for each of one or more drivers, [0033]; services requests for these files, [0027]; and then provide results of these files to a client device, also [0033]. Here, Mundt teaches the driver Qualification File (data package associated with a driver) can be accessed (requested) by a first and/or second third-party device (first third party and second third party). Further to Mundt’s disclosure is that these external users (third parties) include; “(e.g., Carrier's Customer, Auditor, Carriers, Drivers, Mechanics, etc.) and external systems 418 (e.g., FMCSA, MaxMedia, Trinity, Electronic Logs, Maintenance Companies, etc.)”. See [0040 and 0089] and Fig 4.
Further to Mundt’s disclosure, is the teaching of item d), above: ([0118]: “Update Existing Driver”; and, [0056]: “Vehicle Maintenance Record”. Mundt adds, at [0144], updating of driver’s certification documents.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to share driver data with first and second third-parties per Mundt’s method, within Kwak’s driver log system because this provides an efficient and useful way to have this data sent to those parties who will inevitably be requiring it, Mundt is further motivated to include a plurality of third parties because this data is required by federal and state authorities as well as carriers and insurance companies. Mundt discusses these advantages at [0007-0010].
Also not disclosed by Kwak is:
h) receiving, updated data from a device associated with a driver account, wherein the updated data comprises a picture of a document captured via a camera associated with the driver device.
However, Walton discloses a method for fleet management and suggests input and receipt of document data via a cell phone camera, or scanner. See [0045]. Because Walton’s method suggests a driver uploads documents where they choose or are required, this would be analogous to keeping data updated, as detailed broadly within the instant application.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to upload current document data, via a camera, per the method of Walton, within Kwak’s driver log system because this is a known process, using common devices in order to upload required data. Walton’s method teaches data upload after an accident, see [Abstract]. This method would suggest the most updated (current) data because it is required post-accident; i.e., most timely.
Also not disclosed by Kwak is:
i. processing the updated data to detect an error in the updated data;
j. initiating a mechanism for handling the error, wherein the mechanism comprises one or more actions to correct the error;
k. in response to initiating the mechanism, receiving corrected updated data from the device associated with the driver account.
(The underlined elements identify amended claim elements and are further explained below as to be disclosed by the cited prior art).
However, Kwak ‘510 discloses a vehicle electronic logging device (eld) hour-of-service (hos) audit and correction guidance system and method and teaches the system audits the data entered, detects errors, and suggests corrections be made and the updated data re-loaded. See [0009 and 0058]. The Examiner notes that Applicant argued support for these elements at Specification [0026 and 0428-0431]. Because these paragraphs are lacking in enablement, Kwak was earlier deemed to read upon these elements. The Examiner also relies on Specification [0433] when defining these elements: “If an error is made, the system should be able to detect the error and offer simple, comprehensible mechanisms for handling the error.” Based upon this interpretation, the Examiner maintains the conclusion that Kwak ‘510 discloses these exact elements. See [0098] detailing a detection module for comparing data (a mechanism to detect the error), as well as providing assistance to correct data entry, (one or more actions to correct the error).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to process data and identify errors, per the method of Kwak ‘510, within Kwak’s earlier disclosed driver log system because this alleviates errors within the loaded data, often produced by the same error-prone users. By eliminating these errors, and offering coaching per Kwak ‘510, the driver log system of Kwak operates more efficiently. See Kwak ‘510 [Abstract – 0001].
Regarding claims 2 and 25, the combination of Kwak, Walton, Mundt, and Kwak ‘510, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 21, above. Not disclosed by Kwak is wherein the driver record comprises emergency contact information.
However, Walton discloses a fleet management system that contains drivers’ records [0005] and suggests to include emergency contact information, at [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include drivers’ emergency contact information per Walton’s method, and include this information within Kwak’s driver log system because this provides useful information in certain situations involving driver’s, including accidents. Walton details this scenario at [Abstract].
Regarding claims 3 and 26, the combination of Kwak, Walton, Mundt, and Kwak ‘510, discloses all the limitations of claims 2 and 21, above. Further disclosed by Kwak is wherein the driver record further comprises a record of all inspections, repairs, and maintenance for a vehicle operated by the driver; (see [0008] where the ELD data includes repair or maintenance info; and, [0002] where mandatory vehicle inspections are conducted).
Regarding claims 4 and 27, the combination of Kwak, Walton, Mundt, and Kwak ‘510, discloses all the limitations of claims 3 and 21, above.
Not disclosed by Kwak is wherein the request from the first third-party computing device comprises an indication to request, from the data management platform, proof of insurance and an accident register associated with the driver account of the driver.
However, Walton discloses a fleet management system that reports post-accident information to third parties, at [0029]; and includes insurance information, at [0029], and includes an accident tracker app that stores accident records, at [0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include insurance and accident records per Walton’s method, and include this information within Kwak’s driver log system because this provides useful information in certain situations involving driver’s, particularly in accident scenarios, as Walton details at [Abstract].
Regarding claims 5 and 28, the combination of Kwak, Walton, Mundt, and Kwak ‘510, discloses all the limitations of claims 4 and 21, above.
Not disclosed by Kwak is wherein the driver record further comprises a Vehicle Identification Number for the vehicle and a Driver’s License Number for the driver.
However, Walton discloses a fleet management system that reports post-accident information to third parties, and includes year, make, model and VIN of the truck, at [0031], and includes driver license status, at [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include vehicle VIN and driver license information per Walton’s method, and include this information within Kwak’s driver log system because this provides useful information in certain situations involving driver’s, particularly in accident scenarios, as Walton details at [Abstract].
Regarding claims 6 and 29, the combination of Kwak, Walton, Mundt, and Kwak ‘510, discloses all the limitations of claims 5 and 21, above.
Not disclosed by Kwak is receiving a request, from the second third-party computing device, by the third party, to update the driver record at the data management platform.
However, Walton discloses a fleet management system that reports post-accident information to third parties, and includes, at [0034] a request by a government office or official (a third-party) for required information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to share requested information per Walton’s method, and include this information within Kwak’s driver log system because this provides useful information in certain situations involving driver’s, particularly in accident scenarios, as Walton details at [Abstract].
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kwak, Mundt, Walton, and Kwak ‘510, discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Not disclosed by Kwak is wherein the first request is associated with a first application by the driver that is associated with the first entity profile; and the second request is associated with a second application by the driver that is associated with the second entity profile.
However, Mundt discloses a transportation compliance system and teaches that this system includes drive applications processes. See [0042]. See also [Abstract] where Mundt suggests a file for each of “one or more drivers”. Because Mundt teaches a plurality of drivers within the disclosure, as well as Figures 6 and 9, it would be understood by those killed in the art that multiple drivers would be applying with a company, thus disclosing a first and a second entity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to share first and second (or – more than one) driver data per Mundt’s method, within Kwak’s driver log system because this provides an efficient and useful way to manage this data electronically, providing apparent efficiencies and benefits. Mundt discusses these advantages at [0023] and Figures 6 – 9.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Kwak, Mundt, Walton, and Kwak ‘510, discloses all the limitations of claim 21, above.
Not disclosed by Kwak is wherein the first set of operations further comprises requesting the corrected updated data from the driver computing device; and the corrected update data is provided by the driver computing device in response to receiving a request from the data management platform device.
However, Mundt discloses a transportation compliance system and teaches: (at [0118]: “Update Existing Driver”; and, [0056]: “Vehicle Maintenance Record”. Mundt adds, at [0144], updating of driver’s certification documents.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to share driver data with first and second third-parties per Mundt’s method, within Kwak’s driver log system because this provides an efficient and useful way to have this data sent to those parties who will inevitably be requiring it, Mundt is further motivated to include a plurality of third parties because this data is required by federal and state authorities as well as carriers and insurance companies. Mundt discusses these advantages at [0007-0010].
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Kwak, Mundt, Walton, and Kwak ‘510, discloses all the limitations of claim 21, above. Kwak further discloses wherein the data management platform device obtains vehicle data from the electronic logging device via a connection to the vehicle; (“…a vehicle electronic logging device (ELD) connected to the vehicle OBD device,…”, at [0008]).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Kwak, Mundt, Walton, and Kwak ‘510, discloses all the limitations of claim 21, above. Kwak further discloses wherein the driver computing device obtains vehicle data from the electronic logging device via a wireless connection to the electronic logging device; (“…a data communication network configured to provide a wireless data information transfer among the vehicle ELD, the ELD and OBD data transceiver,…”, at [0008]).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Kwak, Mundt, Walton, and Kwak ‘510, discloses all the limitations of claim 21, above.
Not disclosed by Kwak is wherein the driver record further comprises an Application for Employment of the driver.
However, Mundt discloses a transportation compliance system and teaches that this system includes a driver application processes; at [0035 - 0036]. See also Figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to share employment applications per Mundt’s application process, within Kwak’s driver log system because this provides an efficient and useful way to manage this data electronically, providing apparent efficiencies and benefits. Mundt discusses these advantages at [0023] and Figures 6 – 9.
Claims 7, 8, and 30, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak, in view of Mundt, in view of Walton, in view of Kwak ‘510, further in view of Thome (2004/0162844).
Regarding claims 7 and 30, the combination of Kwak, Mundt, Walton, and Kwak ‘510, discloses all the limitations of claims 6 and 21, above.
Not disclosed by Kwak is wherein the driver record further comprises a manufacturer recall for the vehicle.
However, Thome discloses a driver management system, at [0050], that gathers information from a plurality of sources and includes information regarding vehicle recalls.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to gather recall information per Thome’s method, and include this information within Kwak’s driver log system because this allows trucking companies to improve their efficient of collecting and sharing data as detailed at [Abstract].
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kwak, Mundt, Walton, Kwak ‘510, and Thome, discloses all the limitations of claim 7, above.
Not disclosed by Kwak is wherein the driver record further comprises an Application for Employment of the driver.
However, Mundt discloses a transportation compliance system and teaches that this system includes driver applications processes; at [0035 - 0036]. See also Figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to share employment applications per Mundt’s application process, within Kwak’s driver log system because this provides an efficient and useful way to manage this data electronically, providing apparent efficiencies and benefits. Mundt discusses these advantages at [0023] and Figures 6 – 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments discuss rejection of all prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 8. Applicant remarks first, that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea, and would like to rely on the August 4 memorandum as providing further support as to those arguments. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant.
The Examiner first remarks that the August 4 memo initially states; “[t]his memorandum is not intended to announce any new USPTO practice or procedure and is meant to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance.” Thus, the Examiner maintains that a proper analysis was conducted at Prong One, and the claims continue to set forth a method for collecting, managing, and sharing information about a driver with third parties. This is expressive of business relations among drivers, their fleet managers, and third parties such as federal regulators. Therefore, the claims describe commercial or legal interactions, which are certain methods of organizing human activity, and recite an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant next argues that the claims, when considered as a whole, integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. See pages 9 – 10. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Analysis at Step 2A, Prong Two, requires the use of considerations discussed at MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h), and include an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. When analyzing the use of the additional elements in the amended claims, no additional elements are present that would show this alleged improvement. First, as discussed above, the only additional elements of the claims describe: a cloud network; a data management platform, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions; computing device(s); a camera associated with the device; an electronic logging device. Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, as discussed above. Simply implementing the abstract ideas on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues the claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology. See page 10. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant points to Specification paras [0028, 0074-0075, and 0086] as reflecting this improvement. These paragraphs are reproduced below.
[0028] Uploads
[0074] Uploads
[0075] A Driver Application electronic APP
[0086] All the information will be able to be put into his system.
The Examiner relied on guidance within MPEP to determine if any improvement is disclosed and finds, first, the specification, at best, sets forth an improvement only in a conclusory and broadly manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art). Therefore, a guided, the Examiner should not, and does not, determine the claim improves technology. Second, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Because these claim elements contain no components that would purport to improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology, these additional elements do not provide for integration. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s final argument discusses rejection of all prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See page 10. In view if the amendments to the claims, Applicant’s arguments, and upon further research, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner maintains the prior rejection using previously cited prior art. The Examiner notes above where the newly added elements within claims 1 and 21 are more fittingly disclosed by Kwak ‘501. The Examiner relies on Specification [0433] when defining these elements: “If an error is made, the system should be able to detect the error and offer simple, comprehensible mechanisms for handling the error.” Based upon this interpretation, the Examiner maintains the conclusion that Kwak ‘510 discloses these exact elements. See [0098] detailing a detection module for comparing data (a mechanism to detect the error), as well as providing assistance to correct data entry, (one or more actions to correct the error). Kwak ‘501 thus pointedly teaches “error detection an updating operations of amended claim 1” as Applicant argues on page 11.
Applicant’s arguments as to the remaining claims are not persuasive. Similar to the discussion above, the cited prior art is deemed to teach or suggest all of the recited limitations of claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights