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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 filed on 09/08/2023 have been examined.
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s claims and remarks filed on 11/14/2025. None of the claims have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s accompanying claims and arguments, on pages 15-23 of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks (hereinafter referred to as the “Remarks”), filed 11/14/2025, with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17, and their corresponding dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 stating “… Firstly, the Applicant submits that the cited references fail to teach, disclose, or suggest determining, by the server and using the ML model, permissibility of operating an asset for the operator through a plurality of predefined rules based on: the intoxication score of the operator, wherein the asset operation is permissible when the intoxication score of the operator is above a predefined threshold score required for operating the asset; a plurality of responses corresponding to an examination questionnaire received from the operator, wherein the examination questionnaire comprises a plurality of questions, and wherein the asset operation is permissible when the operator correctly answers more than a predefined threshold number of questions in the questionnaire ... Kobayashi does not disclose a plurality of predefined rules implemented by a machine learning (ML) model for evaluating operator permissibility as recited in the claimed invention… permissibility is conditioned on an operator's intoxication score being above a predefined threshold required for asset operation… Kobayashi does not teach or suggest either the generation of such a score or the structured threshold comparison; instead, Kobayashi relies only on a binary intoxication determination using speech data… Jones does not disclose the following claimed features… permission to operate the asset is only granted if the operator's intoxication score is higher than a set minimum threshold that is required for safe operation… an examination questionnaire comprising multiple questions, requiring the operator to correctly answer more than a predefined threshold number of questions in order to operate the asset… Neither reference discloses or suggests a structured, multi-question examination… There is no disclosure or suggestion in either reference of combining these disparate elements into a unified ML-based permissibility system that applies predefined rules to evaluate both intoxication scores and structured questionnaire responses… Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection with respect to this limitation is respectfully requested…” have been considered and are not persuasive.
Firstly, the Examiner submits that claims 1, 9, and 17 currently recite “… determining, by the server and using the ML model, permissibility of operating an asset for the operator through a plurality of predefined rules based on: the intoxication score of the operator, wherein the asset operation is permissible when the intoxication score of the operator is above a predefined threshold score required for operating the asset; and a plurality of responses corresponding to an examination questionnaire received from the operator, wherein the examination questionnaire comprises a plurality of questions, and wherein the asset operation is permissible when the operator correctly answers more than a predefined threshold number of questions in the questionnaire…”, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation, does not require a unified ML-based permissibility system that applies predefined rules to evaluate both intoxication scores and structured questionnaire responses. Rather, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 1, 9, and 17, Kobayashi is relied upon to disclose a vehicle control system that utilizes a machine learning model to evaluate driver inputs such as speech and image data to determine a driver alcohol level and authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Jones teaches another system that determines a permissibility for a driver to operate a vehicle when a determined sobriety level of driver meets a threshold requirement based on measurements from a blood alcohol sensor and a plurality of cognitive tests or motor functions tests as detailed below in rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Secondly, the Examiner maintains that Kobayashi discloses determining, by the server and using the ML model, permissibility of operating an asset for the operator through a plurality of predefined rules (See at least [0051] - The alcohol level determining model 47 is a learned model including a speech data … an image data of the speaker as an input… data indicating a time required to speak a word… a rhythm of a speech including a tone, an interval of the speech, and the like, are used as teaching data… from the image data… a complexion, a facial expression, and a motion of the speaker … are used as teaching data. The alcohol level determining model 47 is constructed by machine learning using plural data pairs … The plural data pairs are configured by pairing the teaching data and output data with each other. The output data indicates the alcohol level of the speaker …” and [0078]-[0082] of Kobayashi – “… the alcohol level determining information output process (see FIG. 6) described above is again performed... in a case in which the driver 11 is not in the intoxicated state, a negative determination is made in step S114, and the present vehicle control process ends. In this case, the control section 50 does not instruct the vehicle operation control ECU 19 to prevent the starting of the engine, and the driver 11 can thus start the engine of the vehicle 13…”) based on: the intoxication score of the operator (See at least [0051] of Kobayashi – “… The storage section 46 stores an alcohol level determining model 47… The output data indicates the alcohol level of the speaker at the time of performing a speech indicated by the speech data…”).
Thirdly, the Examiner notes that the intoxication score of the operator is a broad term and Kobayashi discloses outputting an alcohol level of the speaker to determine whether a driver may start an engine of vehicle, which reads on the limitation reciting an intoxication score of the operator. Furthermore, although Kobayashi does not specifically recite an intoxication score of the operator being above a predefined threshold score required for operating the asset, Jones, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the asset operation is permissible when the intoxication score of the operator is above a predefined threshold score required for operating the asset (See at least [0088] of Jones – “The sobriety threshold is pre-programmed and is stored on the sobriety processor 20 or on a memory device connected to the sobriety processor 20… the sobriety threshold sets the upper limit on how inebriated the vehicle driver may be and still be allowed to operate the vehicle...” and detailed mapping provided below).
Lastly, the Examiner maintains that Jones teaches wherein the examination questionnaire comprises a plurality of questions, and wherein the asset operation is permissible when the operator correctly answers more than a predefined threshold number of questions in the questionnaire (See at least [0083]-[0084] of Jones – “… the haptic input device 26 is utilized to measure motor functions or the agility of the vehicle driver… motor function tests measure the reaction time of the vehicle driver, which is then utilized to determine whether or not the vehicle driver should be allowed to operate the vehicle… The responses recorded throughout the motor function tests are recorded and compared by the sobriety processor 20 to the baselines to establish whether or not the vehicle driver is allowed to operate the vehicle…”). As provided below in the Office Action, the Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention as disclosed in Kobayashi to include this feature as taught by Jones, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to compare the responses to baselines to establish whether or not the vehicle driver is allowed to operate the vehicle as specified in at least [0084] of Jones.
Applicant’s accompanying claims and arguments, on pages 23-27 of the Applicant Remarks, filed 11/14/2025, with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17, and their corresponding dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 stating “… Secondly, the Applicant submits that the cited references fail to teach, disclose, or suggest ... transmitting, by the server, authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises operator details, a class of the asset, conditions of operation, a validity period, an issuer, and checksum ... Kobayashi is directed to intoxication detection, Gester concerns access control with restrictions, and Bertrand focuses on data integrity for computational requests. These references address unrelated problems in distinct domains… Further the Applicant submits that the Examiner's proposed combination is based on hindsight. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Kobayashi with Gester's restrictions and Bertrand's checksum … Therefore, the ordered combination of the claimed invention goes significantly beyond the Kobayashi's intoxication detection, Gester access control with restrictions, and Bertrand data integrity for computational requests… Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection with respect to this limitation is respectfully requested…” have been considered and are not persuasive.
As for the Kobayashi and Gester reference combination, the Examiner maintains that while Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that utilizes a machine learning model and server to evaluate driver inputs such as speech and image data to determine a driver alcohol level and transmit a determination result to the vehicle to authorize access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, Gester, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system that provides access control for drivers to operate vehicles that comprises providing class of the asset, conditions of operation, a validity period, and an issuer to temporarily authorize use of a vehicle to a driver. As provided below, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of transmitting, by the server, authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises a class of the asset, conditions of operation, a validity period, an issuer as taught by Gester, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to grant access to an individual seeking access to a vehicle when verification of temporary authorization information has been completed as specified in at least [0056] of Gester.
Finally, for the Kobayashi and Bertrand reference combination, the Examiner submits that Kobayashi discloses data transmission between a vehicle and a server, while Bertrand, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system that verifies the integrity of information received by different computing components with an associated checksum. As provided below, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of transmitting, by the server, authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises checksum as taught by Bertrand, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to verify the integrity of a request as specified in at least [0064] of Bertrand.
Therefore, the rejections of claims 1, 9, and 17, and their corresponding dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained by the Examiner.
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 (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.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. US 20190210607 A1 (“Kobayashi”) in view of Jones US 20210139037 A1 (“Jones”), Gester et al. US 20200219350 A1 (“Gester”), Bertrand et al. US 20240059301 A1 (“Bertrand”), and Arechiga-Gonzalez et al. US 20220153302 A1 (“Arechiga-Gonzalez”).
For claim 1, Kobayashi discloses a method of intoxication examination of an operator for operating an asset, the method (See at least [0006] of Kobayashi – “… a vehicle control device including: a speech acquiring section that acquires speech data related to a speech of a speaker; a state acquiring section that acquires information indicating whether or not a driver attempting to start driving a vehicle is in an intoxicated state based on the speech data; and a control section configured to limit a start operation of the vehicle in a case in which the information indicates that the driver is in the intoxicated state…”) comprising:
receiving, by a server, input data corresponding to the operator prior to operating the asset from at least one of an asset or a client device, wherein the asset is in a locked state, and wherein in the locked state the asset is inaccessible by the operator (See at least [0072]-[0076] of Kobayashi – “… In the server 14 that has received the speech data and the image data from the vehicle control device 12, the control section 70 determines the alcohol level of the driver 11 using the alcohol level determining model 47... In a case in which the driver 11 is in the intoxicated state, an affirmative determination is made in step S104, and the process proceeds to step S106… In step S106… the control section 50 prevents the opening of the driver's door, and the present vehicle control process ends…”);
determining, by the server, an intoxication score of the operator based on the input data using a Machine Learning (ML) model (See at least [0051] of Kobayashi – “… The storage section 46 stores an alcohol level determining model 47. The alcohol level determining model 47 is a learned model including a speech data of a speaker (the driver 11) and an image data of the speaker as an input, and including information …The alcohol level determining model 47 is constructed by machine learning using plural data pairs as learning data. The plural data pairs are configured by pairing the teaching data and output data with each other. The output data indicates the alcohol level of the speaker at the time of performing a speech indicated by the speech data…”);
determining, by the server and using the ML model, permissibility of operating an asset for the operator through a plurality of predefined rules (See at least [0078]-[0082] of Kobayashi – “… the alcohol level determining information output process (see FIG. 6) described above is again performed... in a case in which the driver 11 is not in the intoxicated state, a negative determination is made in step S114, and the present vehicle control process ends. In this case, the control section 50 does not instruct the vehicle operation control ECU 19 to prevent the starting of the engine, and the driver 11 can thus start the engine of the vehicle 13…”) based on:
the intoxication score of the operator (See at least [0051] of Kobayashi – “… The storage section 46 stores an alcohol level determining model 47… The output data indicates the alcohol level of the speaker at the time of performing a speech indicated by the speech data…”); and
a plurality of responses corresponding to an examination questionnaire received from the operator (See at least [0055] of Kobayashi – “… the output section 51 outputs a voice for asking the driver 11 an effective predetermined question, or the like, in order to determine the alcohol level, as a voice for urging an answer, through the sound output section 30…”);
assigning, by the server, the asset to the operator when the asset operation is determined to be permissible for the operator (See at least [0078]-[0082] of Kobayashi – “… the alcohol level determining information output process (see FIG. 6) described above is again performed... in a case in which the driver 11 is not in the intoxicated state, a negative determination is made in step S104, and the vehicle control process proceeds to step S108. In this case, the control section 50 does not instruct the vehicle operation control ECU 19 to prevent opening the driver's door, and the driver 11 can thus open the driver's door and get in the vehicle 13…”);
transmitting, by the server, authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises operator details (See at least [0074] of Kobayashi – “… the state acquiring section 62 determines whether or not the information indicating the alcohol level has been received from the server 14…”);
authorizing, by the asset, the operator to operate the asset based on the authorization information, wherein upon successfully authorizing, the asset is in an unlocked state, and wherein in the unlocked state the asset is accessible by the operator (See at least [0074]-[0082] of Kobayashi – “in step S102, the state acquiring section 62 determines whether or not the information indicating the alcohol level has been received from the server 14… in a case in which the driver 11 is not in the intoxicated state… the control section 50 does not instruct the vehicle operation control ECU 19 to prevent opening the driver's door, and the driver 11 can thus open the driver's door and get in the vehicle 13… On the other hand, in a case in which the driver 11 is not in the intoxicated state, a negative determination is made in step S114, and the present vehicle control process ends. In this case, the control section 50 does not instruct the vehicle operation control ECU 19 to prevent the starting of the engine, and the driver 11 can thus start the engine of the vehicle 13…”).
Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose wherein the asset operation is permissible when the intoxication score of the operator is above a predefined threshold score required for operating the asset,
wherein the examination questionnaire comprises a plurality of questions, and wherein the asset operation is permissible when the operator correctly answers more than a predefined threshold number of questions in the questionnaire.
However, Jones, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the asset operation is permissible when the intoxication score of the operator is above a predefined threshold score required for operating the asset (See at least [0088] of Jones – “The sobriety threshold is pre-programmed and is stored on the sobriety processor 20 or on a memory device connected to the sobriety processor 20… the sobriety threshold sets the upper limit on how inebriated the vehicle driver may be and still be allowed to operate the vehicle...”),
wherein the examination questionnaire comprises a plurality of questions, and wherein the asset operation is permissible when the operator correctly answers more than a predefined threshold number of questions in the questionnaire (See at least [0083]-[0084] of Jones – “… the haptic input device 26 is utilized to measure motor functions or the agility of the vehicle driver… motor function tests measure the reaction time of the vehicle driver, which is then utilized to determine whether or not the vehicle driver should be allowed to operate the vehicle… The responses recorded throughout the motor function tests are recorded and compared by the sobriety processor 20 to the baselines to establish whether or not the vehicle driver is allowed to operate the vehicle…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Jones teaches a system that determines whether a sobriety level of driver meets a threshold requirement to allow a vehicle to be operated based on measurements from an blood alcohol sensor and a plurality of cognitive tests or motor functions tests.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of wherein the examination questionnaire comprises a plurality of questions, and wherein the asset operation is permissible when the operator correctly answers more than a predefined threshold number of questions in the questionnaire as taught by Jones, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to compare the responses to baselines to establish whether or not the vehicle driver is allowed to operate the vehicle as specified in at least [0084] of Jones.
Furthermore, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose transmitting, by the server, authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises a class of the asset, conditions of operation, a validity period, an issuer.
However, Gester, in the same field of endeavor teaches transmitting, by the server, authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises a class of the asset, conditions of operation, a validity period, an issuer (See at least [0031]-[0038] – “… sobriety testing station 2, which sends the authorization data (i.e. the employment number or the personal identification number) to the central control unit 3… If the central control unit 3 finds a match between the authorization data and the general authorization information… examples of restrictions can be … the individual is, for example, only permitted to drive company cars... The authorization control and sobriety testing station 2 is further configured and arranged to send the result of the analysis of the bodily signature sample to the central control unit 3, which, if there is a positive match between the authorization data and the general authorization information and no detection of alcohol, issues temporary authorization information, which is sent to, or which is otherwise accessible or obtainable by, the at least one access control unit 4… at least one access control unit 4 is configured and arranged to obtain the temporary authorization information issued by the central control unit 3 and to verify the validity of the temporary authorization information, and to, if the temporary authorization information is valid, grant access to the individual who is seeking such access… access control unit 4 is implemented in a vehicle…” and [0054] of Gester – “… the time interval within which the temporary authorization information is valid, is determined and set by the operator of the system for access control and sobriety testing… If the system instead is incorporated in a vehicle, a considerably longer time interval can be necessary… a suitable time interval can correspond to the length of the work shift, e.g. 4 hours or 8 hours, or somewhat longer to take into account unforeseen events…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Gester teaches a system that provides access control for drivers to operate vehicles that comprises providing class of the asset, conditions of operation, a validity period, and an issuer to temporarily authorize use of a vehicle to a driver.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of transmitting, by the server, authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises a class of the asset, conditions of operation, a validity period, an issuer as taught by Gester, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to grant access to an individual seeking access to a vehicle when verification of temporary authorization information has been completed as specified in at least [0056] of Gester.
Moreover, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose transmitting, by the server, authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises checksum.
However, Bertrand, in the same field of endeavor teaches transmitting, by the server, authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises checksum (See at least [0064] of Bertrand – “… The first computing unit 100 may comprise a first processing module 101 configured to verify the integrity of a computation request received by the device 10 for computing driving parameters from an external sending device 20… The external sending device 20 may further send, simultaneously or sequentially over time, the computation request and the associated checksum…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Bertrand teaches a system that verifies the integrity of information received by different computing components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of transmitting, by the server, authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises checksum as taught by Bertrand, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to verify the integrity of a request as specified in at least [0064] of Bertrand.
Finally, Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose upon authorization, monitoring in real-time, by the server, the operator during the asset operation from real-time video data of the operator to check for compliance of the asset operation with the conditions of operation.
However, Arechiga-Gonzalez, in the same field of endeavor teaches upon authorization, monitoring in real-time, by the server, the operator during the asset operation from real-time video data of the operator to check for compliance of the asset operation with the conditions of operation (See at least [0017] of Arechiga-Gonzalez – “… predicting impairment of a driver of a vehicle by a driver monitor system including at least one video camera….detecting, by the processing circuitry, eye gaze movement, eye lid position… to predict, by the processing circuitry, whether the user is transitioning into an impaired physical state… outputting to the vehicle an instruction … to perform a safe pull over operation of the vehicle…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Arechiga-Gonzalez teaches a driver impairment monitoring system that predicts impairment of a user of a vehicle and provides instruction for the vehicle to perform a contingency based on a determination of whether a user is fit to continue driving the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of upon authorization, monitoring in real-time, by the server, the operator during the asset operation from real-time video data of the operator to check for compliance of the asset operation with the conditions of operation as taught by Arechiga-Gonzalez, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to perform a safe pull over operation of the vehicle in the case that it is determined that driver is impaired as specified in at least [0017] of Arechiga-Gonzalez.
For claim 9, Kobayashi discloses a system for intoxication examination of an operator for operating an asset (See at least [0006] of Kobayashi – “… a vehicle control device including: a speech acquiring section that acquires speech data related to a speech of a speaker; a state acquiring section that acquires information indicating whether or not a driver attempting to start driving a vehicle is in an intoxicated state based on the speech data; and a control section configured to limit a start operation of the vehicle in a case in which the information indicates that the driver is in the intoxicated state…”), the system comprising:
a processor (See at least Fig. 3 of Kobayashi – CPU 40); and
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores processor-executable instructions (See at least [0052] of Kobayashi – “Further, the storage section 46 stores an alcohol level determining program 48 for executing an alcohol level determining process (to be described in detail below) of determining the alcohol level using the alcohol level determining model 47…”), which, on execution, cause the processor to:
receive input data corresponding to the operator prior to operating the asset from at least one of an asset or a client device, wherein the asset is in a locked state, and wherein in the locked state the asset is inaccessible by the operator (See at least [0072]-[0076] of Kobayashi – “… In the server 14 that has received the speech data and the image data from the vehicle control device 12, the control section 70 determines the alcohol level of the driver 11 using the alcohol level determining model 47... In a case in which the driver 11 is in the intoxicated state, an affirmative determination is made in step S104, and the process proceeds to step S106… In step S106… the control section 50 prevents the opening of the driver's door, and the present vehicle control process ends…”);
determine an intoxication score of the operator based on the input data using a Machine Learning (ML) model (See at least [0051] of Kobayashi – “… The storage section 46 stores an alcohol level determining model 47. The alcohol level determining model 47 is a learned model including a speech data of a speaker (the driver 11) and an image data of the speaker as an input, and including information …The alcohol level determining model 47 is constructed by machine learning using plural data pairs as learning data. The plural data pairs are configured by pairing the teaching data and output data with each other. The output data indicates the alcohol level of the speaker at the time of performing a speech indicated by the speech data…”);
determine, by the server and using the ML model, permissibility of operating an asset for the operator through a plurality of predefined rules (See at least [0078]-[0082] of Kobayashi – “… the alcohol level determining information output process (see FIG. 6) described above is again performed... in a case in which the driver 11 is not in the intoxicated state, a negative determination is made in step S114, and the present vehicle control process ends. In this case, the control section 50 does not instruct the vehicle operation control ECU 19 to prevent the starting of the engine, and the driver 11 can thus start the engine of the vehicle 13…”) based on:
the intoxication score of the operator (See at least [0051] of Kobayashi – “… The storage section 46 stores an alcohol level determining model 47… The output data indicates the alcohol level of the speaker at the time of performing a speech indicated by the speech data…”); and
a plurality of responses corresponding to an examination questionnaire received from the operator (See at least [0055] of Kobayashi – “… the output section 51 outputs a voice for asking the driver 11 an effective predetermined question, or the like, in order to determine the alcohol level, as a voice for urging an answer, through the sound output section 30…”);
assign, by the server, the asset to the operator when the asset operation is determined to be permissible for the operator (See at least [0078]-[0082] of Kobayashi – “… the alcohol level determining information output process (see FIG. 6) described above is again performed... in a case in which the driver 11 is not in the intoxicated state, a negative determination is made in step S104, and the vehicle control process proceeds to step S108. In this case, the control section 50 does not instruct the vehicle operation control ECU 19 to prevent opening the driver's door, and the driver 11 can thus open the driver's door and get in the vehicle 13…”);
transmit, by the server, authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises operator details (See at least [0074] of Kobayashi – “… the state acquiring section 62 determines whether or not the information indicating the alcohol level has been received from the server 14…”);
authorize, by the asset, the operator to operate the asset based on the authorization information, wherein upon successfully authorizing, the asset is in an unlocked state, and wherein in the unlocked state the asset is accessible by the operator (See at least [0074]-[0082] of Kobayashi – “in step S102, the state acquiring section 62 determines whether or not the information indicating the alcohol level has been received from the server 14… in a case in which the driver 11 is not in the intoxicated state… the control section 50 does not instruct the vehicle operation control ECU 19 to prevent opening the driver's door, and the driver 11 can thus open the driver's door and get in the vehicle 13… On the other hand, in a case in which the driver 11 is not in the intoxicated state, a negative determination is made in step S114, and the present vehicle control process ends. In this case, the control section 50 does not instruct the vehicle operation control ECU 19 to prevent the starting of the engine, and the driver 11 can thus start the engine of the vehicle 13…”).
Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose wherein the asset operation is permissible when the intoxication score of the operator is above a predefined threshold score required for operating the asset,
wherein the examination questionnaire comprises a plurality of questions, and wherein the asset operation is permissible when the operator correctly answers more than a predefined threshold number of questions in the questionnaire.
However, Jones, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the asset operation is permissible when the intoxication score of the operator is above a predefined threshold score required for operating the asset (See at least [0088] of Jones – “The sobriety threshold is pre-programmed and is stored on the sobriety processor 20 or on a memory device connected to the sobriety processor 20… the sobriety threshold sets the upper limit on how inebriated the vehicle driver may be and still be allowed to operate the vehicle...”),
wherein the examination questionnaire comprises a plurality of questions, and wherein the asset operation is permissible when the operator correctly answers more than a predefined threshold number of questions in the questionnaire (See at least [0083]-[0084] of Jones – “… the haptic input device 26 is utilized to measure motor functions or the agility of the vehicle driver… motor function tests measure the reaction time of the vehicle driver, which is then utilized to determine whether or not the vehicle driver should be allowed to operate the vehicle… The responses recorded throughout the motor function tests are recorded and compared by the sobriety processor 20 to the baselines to establish whether or not the vehicle driver is allowed to operate the vehicle…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Jones teaches a system that determines whether a sobriety level of driver meets a threshold requirement to allow a vehicle to be operated based on measurements from an blood alcohol sensor and a plurality of cognitive tests or motor functions tests.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of wherein the examination questionnaire comprises a plurality of questions, and wherein the asset operation is permissible when the operator correctly answers more than a predefined threshold number of questions in the questionnaire as taught by Jones, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to compare the responses to baselines to establish whether or not the vehicle driver is allowed to operate the vehicle as specified in at least [0084] of Jones.
Furthermore, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose transmit, by the server, authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises a class of the asset, conditions of operation, a validity period, an issuer.
However, Gester, in the same field of endeavor teaches transmit, by the server, authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises a class of the asset, conditions of operation, a validity period, an issuer (See at least [0031]-[0038] – “… sobriety testing station 2, which sends the authorization data (i.e. the employment number or the personal identification number) to the central control unit 3… If the central control unit 3 finds a match between the authorization data and the general authorization information… examples of restrictions can be … the individual is, for example, only permitted to drive company cars... The authorization control and sobriety testing station 2 is further configured and arranged to send the result of the analysis of the bodily signature sample to the central control unit 3, which, if there is a positive match between the authorization data and the general authorization information and no detection of alcohol, issues temporary authorization information, which is sent to, or which is otherwise accessible or obtainable by, the at least one access control unit 4… at least one access control unit 4 is configured and arranged to obtain the temporary authorization information issued by the central control unit 3 and to verify the validity of the temporary authorization information, and to, if the temporary authorization information is valid, grant access to the individual who is seeking such access… access control unit 4 is implemented in a vehicle…” and [0054] of Gester – “… the time interval within which the temporary authorization information is valid, is determined and set by the operator of the system for access control and sobriety testing… If the system instead is incorporated in a vehicle, a considerably longer time interval can be necessary… a suitable time interval can correspond to the length of the work shift, e.g. 4 hours or 8 hours, or somewhat longer to take into account unforeseen events…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Gester teaches a system that provides access control for drivers to operate vehicles that comprises providing class of the asset, conditions of operation, a validity period, and an issuer to temporarily authorize use of a vehicle to a driver.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of transmitting, by the server, authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises a class of the asset, conditions of operation, a validity period, an issuer as taught by Gester, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to grant access to an individual seeking access to a vehicle when verification of temporary authorization information has been completed as specified in at least [0056] of Gester.
Moreover, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose transmit, by the server, authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises checksum.
However, Bertrand, in the same field of endeavor teaches transmit, by the server, authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises checksum (See at least [0064] of Bertrand – “… The first computing unit 100 may comprise a first processing module 101 configured to verify the integrity of a computation request received by the device 10 for computing driving parameters from an external sending device 20… The external sending device 20 may further send, simultaneously or sequentially over time, the computation request and the associated checksum…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Bertrand teaches a system that verifies the integrity of information received by different computing components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of transmitting, by the server, authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises checksum as taught by Bertrand, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to verify the integrity of a request as specified in at least [0064] of Bertrand.
Finally, Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose upon authorization, monitor in real-time, by the server, the operator during the asset operation from real-time video data of the operator to check for compliance of the asset operation with the conditions of operation.
However, Arechiga-Gonzalez, in the same field of endeavor teaches upon authorization, monitor in real-time, by the server, the operator during the asset operation from real-time video data of the operator to check for compliance of the asset operation with the conditions of operation (See at least [0017] of Arechiga-Gonzalez – “… predicting impairment of a driver of a vehicle by a driver monitor system including at least one video camera….detecting, by the processing circuitry, eye gaze movement, eye lid position… to predict, by the processing circuitry, whether the user is transitioning into an impaired physical state… outputting to the vehicle an instruction … to perform a safe pull over operation of the vehicle…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Arechiga-Gonzalez teaches a driver impairment monitoring system that predicts impairment of a user of a vehicle and provides instruction for the vehicle to perform a contingency based on a determination of whether a user is fit to continue driving the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of upon authorization, monitoring in real-time, by the server, the operator during the asset operation from real-time video data of the operator to check for compliance of the asset operation with the conditions of operation as taught by Arechiga-Gonzalez, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to perform a safe pull over operation of the vehicle in the case that it is determined that driver is impaired as specified in at least [0017] of Arechiga-Gonzalez.
For claim 17, Kobayashi discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions for intoxication examination of an operator for operating an asset (See at least [0006] – “… a vehicle control device including: a speech acquiring section that acquires speech data related to a speech of a speaker; a state acquiring section that acquires information indicating whether or not a driver attempting to start driving a vehicle is in an intoxicated state based on the speech data; and a control section configured to limit a start operation of the vehicle in a case in which the information indicates that the driver is in the intoxicated state…” and [0052] of Kobayashi – “Further, the storage section 46 stores an alcohol level determining program 48 for executing an alcohol level determining process (to be described in detail below) of determining the alcohol level using the alcohol level determining model 47…”), the computer-executable instructions configured for:
receiving input data corresponding to the operator prior to operating the asset from at least one of an asset or a client device, wherein the asset is in a locked state, and wherein in the locked state the asset is inaccessible by the operator (See at least [0072]-[0076] of Kobayashi – “… In the server 14 that has received the speech data and the image data from the vehicle control device 12, the control section 70 determines the alcohol level of the driver 11 using the alcohol level determining model 47... In a case in which the driver 11 is in the intoxicated state, an affirmative determination is made in step S104, and the process proceeds to step S106… In step S106… the control section 50 prevents the opening of the driver's door, and the present vehicle control process ends…”);
determining an intoxication score of the operator based on the input data using a Machine Learning (ML) model (See at least [0051] of Kobayashi – “… The storage section 46 stores an alcohol level determining model 47. The alcohol level determining model 47 is a learned model including a speech data of a speaker (the driver 11) and an image data of the speaker as an input, and including information …The alcohol level determining model 47 is constructed by machine learning using plural data pairs as learning data. The plural data pairs are configured by pairing the teaching data and output data with each other. The output data indicates the alcohol level of the speaker at the time of performing a speech indicated by the speech data…”);
determining, using the ML model, permissibility of operating an asset for the operator through a plurality of predefined rules (See at least [0078]-[0082] of Kobayashi – “… the alcohol level determining information output process (see FIG. 6) described above is again performed... in a case in which the driver 11 is not in the intoxicated state, a negative determination is made in step S114, and the present vehicle control process ends. In this case, the control section 50 does not instruct the vehicle operation control ECU 19 to prevent the starting of the engine, and the driver 11 can thus start the engine of the vehicle 13…”) based on:
the intoxication score of the operator (See at least [0051] of Kobayashi – “… The storage section 46 stores an alcohol level determining model 47… The output data indicates the alcohol level of the speaker at the time of performing a speech indicated by the speech data…”); and
a plurality of responses corresponding to an examination questionnaire received from the operator (See at least [0055] of Kobayashi – “… the output section 51 outputs a voice for asking the driver 11 an effective predetermined question, or the like, in order to determine the alcohol level, as a voice for urging an answer, through the sound output section 30…”);
assigning the asset to the operator when the asset operation is determined to be permissible for the operator (See at least [0078]-[0082] of Kobayashi – “… the alcohol level determining information output process (see FIG. 6) described above is again performed... in a case in which the driver 11 is not in the intoxicated state, a negative determination is made in step S104, and the vehicle control process proceeds to step S108. In this case, the control section 50 does not instruct the vehicle operation control ECU 19 to prevent opening the driver's door, and the driver 11 can thus open the driver's door and get in the vehicle 13…”);
transmitting authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises operator details (See at least [0074] of Kobayashi – “… the state acquiring section 62 determines whether or not the information indicating the alcohol level has been received from the server 14…”);
authorizing the operator to operate the asset based on the authorization information, wherein upon successfully authorizing, the asset is in an unlocked state, and wherein in the unlocked state the asset is accessible by the operator (See at least [0074]-[0082] of Kobayashi – “in step S102, the state acquiring section 62 determines whether or not the information indicating the alcohol level has been received from the server 14… in a case in which the driver 11 is not in the intoxicated state… the control section 50 does not instruct the vehicle operation control ECU 19 to prevent opening the driver's door, and the driver 11 can thus open the driver's door and get in the vehicle 13… On the other hand, in a case in which the driver 11 is not in the intoxicated state, a negative determination is made in step S114, and the present vehicle control process ends. In this case, the control section 50 does not instruct the vehicle operation control ECU 19 to prevent the starting of the engine, and the driver 11 can thus start the engine of the vehicle 13…”).
Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose wherein the asset operation is permissible when the intoxication score of the operator is above a predefined threshold score required for operating the asset,
wherein the examination questionnaire comprises a plurality of questions, and wherein the asset operation is permissible when the operator correctly answers more than a predefined threshold number of questions in the questionnaire.
However, Jones, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the asset operation is permissible when the intoxication score of the operator is above a predefined threshold score required for operating the asset (See at least [0088] of Jones – “The sobriety threshold is pre-programmed and is stored on the sobriety processor 20 or on a memory device connected to the sobriety processor 20… the sobriety threshold sets the upper limit on how inebriated the vehicle driver may be and still be allowed to operate the vehicle...”),
wherein the examination questionnaire comprises a plurality of questions, and wherein the asset operation is permissible when the operator correctly answers more than a predefined threshold number of questions in the questionnaire (See at least [0083]-[0084] of Jones – “… the haptic input device 26 is utilized to measure motor functions or the agility of the vehicle driver… motor function tests measure the reaction time of the vehicle driver, which is then utilized to determine whether or not the vehicle driver should be allowed to operate the vehicle… The responses recorded throughout the motor function tests are recorded and compared by the sobriety processor 20 to the baselines to establish whether or not the vehicle driver is allowed to operate the vehicle…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Jones teaches a system that determines whether a sobriety level of driver meets a threshold requirement to allow a vehicle to be operated based on measurements from an blood alcohol sensor and a plurality of cognitive tests or motor functions tests.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of wherein the examination questionnaire comprises a plurality of questions, and wherein the asset operation is permissible when the operator correctly answers more than a predefined threshold number of questions in the questionnaire as taught by Jones, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to compare the responses to baselines to establish whether or not the vehicle driver is allowed to operate the vehicle as specified in at least [0084] of Jones.
Furthermore, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose transmitting authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises a class of the asset, conditions of operation, a validity period, an issuer.
However, Gester, in the same field of endeavor teaches transmitting authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises a class of the asset, conditions of operation, a validity period, an issuer (See at least [0031]-[0038] – “… sobriety testing station 2, which sends the authorization data (i.e. the employment number or the personal identification number) to the central control unit 3… If the central control unit 3 finds a match between the authorization data and the general authorization information… examples of restrictions can be … the individual is, for example, only permitted to drive company cars... The authorization control and sobriety testing station 2 is further configured and arranged to send the result of the analysis of the bodily signature sample to the central control unit 3, which, if there is a positive match between the authorization data and the general authorization information and no detection of alcohol, issues temporary authorization information, which is sent to, or which is otherwise accessible or obtainable by, the at least one access control unit 4… at least one access control unit 4 is configured and arranged to obtain the temporary authorization information issued by the central control unit 3 and to verify the validity of the temporary authorization information, and to, if the temporary authorization information is valid, grant access to the individual who is seeking such access… access control unit 4 is implemented in a vehicle…” and [0054] of Gester – “… the time interval within which the temporary authorization information is valid, is determined and set by the operator of the system for access control and sobriety testing… If the system instead is incorporated in a vehicle, a considerably longer time interval can be necessary… a suitable time interval can correspond to the length of the work shift, e.g. 4 hours or 8 hours, or somewhat longer to take into account unforeseen events…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Gester teaches a system that provides access control for drivers to operate vehicles that comprises providing class of the asset, conditions of operation, a validity period, and an issuer to temporarily authorize use of a vehicle to a driver.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of transmitting, by the server, authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises a class of the asset, conditions of operation, a validity period, an issuer as taught by Gester, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to grant access to an individual seeking access to a vehicle when verification of temporary authorization information has been completed as specified in at least [0056] of Gester.
Moreover, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose transmitting authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises checksum.
However, Bertrand, in the same field of endeavor teaches transmitting authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises checksum (See at least [0064] of Bertrand – “… The first computing unit 100 may comprise a first processing module 101 configured to verify the integrity of a computation request received by the device 10 for computing driving parameters from an external sending device 20… The external sending device 20 may further send, simultaneously or sequentially over time, the computation request and the associated checksum…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Bertrand teaches a system that verifies the integrity of information received by different computing components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of transmitting, by the server, authorization information to the assigned asset, wherein the authorization information comprises checksum as taught by Bertrand, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to verify the integrity of a request as specified in at least [0064] of Bertrand.
Finally, Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose upon authorization, monitoring in real-time, the operator during the asset operation from real-time video data of the operator to check for compliance of the asset operation with the conditions of operation.
However, Arechiga-Gonzalez, in the same field of endeavor teaches upon authorization, monitoring in real-time, the operator during the asset operation from real-time video data of the operator to check for compliance of the asset operation with the conditions of operation (See at least [0017] of Arechiga-Gonzalez – “… predicting impairment of a driver of a vehicle by a driver monitor system including at least one video camera….detecting, by the processing circuitry, eye gaze movement, eye lid position… to predict, by the processing circuitry, whether the user is transitioning into an impaired physical state… outputting to the vehicle an instruction … to perform a safe pull over operation of the vehicle…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Arechiga-Gonzalez teaches a driver impairment monitoring system that predicts impairment of a user of a vehicle and provides instruction for the vehicle to perform a contingency based on a determination of whether a user is fit to continue driving the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of upon authorization, monitoring in real-time, by the server, the operator during the asset operation from real-time video data of the operator to check for compliance of the asset operation with the conditions of operation as taught by Arechiga-Gonzalez, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to perform a safe pull over operation of the vehicle in the case that it is determined that driver is impaired as specified in at least [0017] of Arechiga-Gonzalez.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Jones, Gester, Bertrand, and Arechiga-Gonzalez, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Albakri US 20190248237 A1 (“Albakri”), Hök et al. US 20230286466 A1 (“Hök”), and Vardharajan US 20210046888 A1 (“Vardharajan”).
For claim 2, Kobayashi discloses wherein:
the input data comprises operator profile (See at least [0056]-[0057] of Kobayashi – “…The determining section 54 determines whether or not the speech data acquired by the speech acquiring section 52 is a speech data of the speech of the driver 11 with reference to the driver identification DB 34…”), audio data corresponding to voice of the operator (See at least [0073] of Kobayashi – “… a process of transmitting the output information indicating the alcohol level to the vehicle control device 12 is performed using the speech data and the image data received from the vehicle control device 12 as an input of the alcohol level determining model 47…”), and intoxication level of the operator estimated using an intoxication examination device (See at least [0041] of Kobayashi – “… The server 14 … determines the alcohol level of the driver 11 (whether or not the driver is in an intoxicated state) based on alcohol level determining information acquired from the vehicle control device 12…”).
Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose the input data comprises intoxication level of the operator estimated using a plurality of intoxication examination devices.
However, Albakri, in the same field of endeavor teaches the input data comprises intoxication level of the operator estimated using a plurality of intoxication examination devices (See at least [0014] of Albakri – “… A plurality of electric wires are attached to the plurality of blood chemistry sensors, to the blood chemistry processor, and to the digital display screen so that the blood alcohol level of the user driver is able to be determined via the plurality of blood chemistry sensors…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Albakri teaches a blood alcohol level sensing system that uses a plurality of sensors to determine the blood alcohol level of a driver.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of the input data comprises intoxication level of the operator estimated using a plurality of intoxication examination devices as taught by Albakri, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the time required for analysis as specified in at least [0015] of Albakri.
Furthermore, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose the input data comprises video data of the operator,
the video data of the operator comprises at least one of:
a video recording of the operator undertaking an intoxication examination with each of the plurality of intoxication examination devices, and
a video recording of the operator responding to one or more prompts via a User Interface (UI).
However, Hök, in the same field of endeavor teaches the input data comprises video data of the operator (See at least [0124] of Hök – “… the secondary input data may comprise video … for detecting the presence of the user … The user behavior is analyzed and classified from video …”),
the video data of the operator comprises at least one of:
a video recording of the operator undertaking an intoxication examination with each of the plurality of intoxication examination devices, and
a video recording of the operator responding to one or more prompts via a User Interface (UI) (See at least [0079] – “The breath analysis system 100 is further be provided with at least one interaction unit 15 that is used by the system to convey instructions to the user …” and [0127] of Hök – “… The user compliance input provided by the secondary sensing unit 14 …The action compliance value is preferably parameterized to a set of integer values…The values may be determined from image or video analysis, wherein, for example upon the instruction “lean forward to the inlet”, value 1 is the user deliberately directing his/hers breath away from the sensor, value 2 is directing the breath towards the inlet, and value three is the user actually leaning close to the inlet…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Hök teaches a breath analyzing system that captures and analyzes video of user performing an intoxication examination to determine a user’s compliance to following instructions provided by the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of the input data comprises video data of the operator as taught by Hök, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine if a user has followed instructions as specified in at least [0127] of Hök.
Moreover, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose the operator profile comprises number of past failed authorization attempts of the operator.
However, Vardharajan, in the same field of endeavor teaches the operator profile comprises number of past failed authorization attempts of the operator (See at least [0065] – “… the user profile may include an activity profile and/or a user setting(s) provided by the user that the user intends to apply to vehicles…” and [0077] of Vardharajan – “…the activity profile may be provided before successful authentication of the user device 110… If authentication of the user device 110 fails, the vehicle 105 and/or user profile management system 125 may indicate to the user device 110 that the authentication failed, request alternative authentication data from the user device 110, and/or ignore the user device 110 (e.g., drop subsequent communications received from the user device 110…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Vardharajan teaches a vehicle system that authenticates user devices and profiles to vehicles and includes failed authorization attempts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of the operator profile comprises number of past failed authorization attempts of the operator as taught by Vardharajan, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to drop subsequent communications received from a user device as specified in at least [0077] of Vardharajan.
For claim 10, Kobayashi discloses wherein:
the input data comprises operator profile (See at least [0056]-[0057] of Kobayashi – “…The determining section 54 determines whether or not the speech data acquired by the speech acquiring section 52 is a speech data of the speech of the driver 11 with reference to the driver identification DB 34…”), audio data corresponding to voice of the operator (See at least [0073] of Kobayashi – “… a process of transmitting the output information indicating the alcohol level to the vehicle control device 12 is performed using the speech data and the image data received from the vehicle control device 12 as an input of the alcohol level determining model 47…”), and intoxication level of the operator estimated using an intoxication examination device (See at least [0041] of Kobayashi – “… The server 14 … determines the alcohol level of the driver 11 (whether or not the driver is in an intoxicated state) based on alcohol level determining information acquired from the vehicle control device 12…”).
Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose the input data comprises intoxication level of the operator estimated using a plurality of intoxication examination devices.
However, Albakri, in the same field of endeavor teaches the input data comprises intoxication level of the operator estimated using a plurality of intoxication examination devices (See at least [0014] of Albakri – “… A plurality of electric wires are attached to the plurality of blood chemistry sensors, to the blood chemistry processor, and to the digital display screen so that the blood alcohol level of the user driver is able to be determined via the plurality of blood chemistry sensors…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Albakri teaches a blood alcohol level sensing system that uses a plurality of sensors to determine the blood alcohol level of a driver.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of the input data comprises intoxication level of the operator estimated using a plurality of intoxication examination devices as taught by Albakri, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the time required for analysis as specified in at least [0015] of Albakri.
Furthermore, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose the input data comprises video data of the operator,
the video data of the operator comprises at least one of:
a video recording of the operator undertaking an intoxication examination with each of the plurality of intoxication examination devices, and
a video recording of the operator responding to one or more prompts via a User Interface (UI).
However, Hök, in the same field of endeavor teaches the input data comprises video data of the operator (See at least [0124] of Hök – “… the secondary input data may comprise video … for detecting the presence of the user … The user behavior is analyzed and classified from video …”),
the video data of the operator comprises at least one of:
a video recording of the operator undertaking an intoxication examination with each of the plurality of intoxication examination devices, and
a video recording of the operator responding to one or more prompts via a User Interface (UI) (See at least [0079] – “The breath analysis system 100 is further be provided with at least one interaction unit 15 that is used by the system to convey instructions to the user …” and [0127] of Hök – “… The user compliance input provided by the secondary sensing unit 14 …The action compliance value is preferably parameterized to a set of integer values…The values may be determined from image or video analysis, wherein, for example upon the instruction “lean forward to the inlet”, value 1 is the user deliberately directing his/hers breath away from the sensor, value 2 is directing the breath towards the inlet, and value three is the user actually leaning close to the inlet…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Hök teaches a breath analyzing system that captures and analyzes video of user performing an intoxication examination to determine a user’s compliance to following instructions provided by the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of the input data comprises video data of the operator as taught by Hök, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine if a user has followed instructions as specified in at least [0127] of Hök.
Moreover, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose the operator profile comprises number of past failed authorization attempts of the operator.
However, Vardharajan, in the same field of endeavor teaches the operator profile comprises number of past failed authorization attempts of the operator (See at least [0065] – “… the user profile may include an activity profile and/or a user setting(s) provided by the user that the user intends to apply to vehicles…” and [0077] of Vardharajan – “…the activity profile may be provided before successful authentication of the user device 110… If authentication of the user device 110 fails, the vehicle 105 and/or user profile management system 125 may indicate to the user device 110 that the authentication failed, request alternative authentication data from the user device 110, and/or ignore the user device 110 (e.g., drop subsequent communications received from the user device 110…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Vardharajan teaches a vehicle system that authenticates user devices and profiles to vehicles and includes failed authorization attempts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of the operator profile comprises number of past failed authorization attempts of the operator as taught by Vardharajan, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to drop subsequent communications received from a user device as specified in at least [0077] of Vardharajan.
For claim 18, Kobayashi discloses wherein:
the input data comprises operator profile (See at least [0056]-[0057] of Kobayashi – “…The determining section 54 determines whether or not the speech data acquired by the speech acquiring section 52 is a speech data of the speech of the driver 11 with reference to the driver identification DB 34…”), audio data corresponding to voice of the operator (See at least [0073] of Kobayashi – “… a process of transmitting the output information indicating the alcohol level to the vehicle control device 12 is performed using the speech data and the image data received from the vehicle control device 12 as an input of the alcohol level determining model 47…”), and intoxication level of the operator estimated using an intoxication examination device (See at least [0041] of Kobayashi – “… The server 14 … determines the alcohol level of the driver 11 (whether or not the driver is in an intoxicated state) based on alcohol level determining information acquired from the vehicle control device 12…”).
Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose the input data comprises intoxication level of the operator estimated using a plurality of intoxication examination devices.
However, Albakri, in the same field of endeavor teaches the input data comprises intoxication level of the operator estimated using a plurality of intoxication examination devices (See at least [0014] of Albakri – “… A plurality of electric wires are attached to the plurality of blood chemistry sensors, to the blood chemistry processor, and to the digital display screen so that the blood alcohol level of the user driver is able to be determined via the plurality of blood chemistry sensors…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Albakri teaches a blood alcohol level sensing system that uses a plurality of sensors to determine the blood alcohol level of a driver.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of the input data comprises intoxication level of the operator estimated using a plurality of intoxication examination devices as taught by Albakri, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the time required for analysis as specified in at least [0015] of Albakri.
Furthermore, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose the input data comprises video data of the operator,
the video data of the operator comprises at least one of:
a video recording of the operator undertaking an intoxication examination with each of the plurality of intoxication examination devices, and
a video recording of the operator responding to one or more prompts via a User Interface (UI).
However, Hök, in the same field of endeavor teaches the input data comprises video data of the operator (See at least [0124] of Hök – “… the secondary input data may comprise video … for detecting the presence of the user … The user behavior is analyzed and classified from video …”),
the video data of the operator comprises at least one of:
a video recording of the operator undertaking an intoxication examination with each of the plurality of intoxication examination devices, and
a video recording of the operator responding to one or more prompts via a User Interface (UI) (See at least [0079] – “The breath analysis system 100 is further be provided with at least one interaction unit 15 that is used by the system to convey instructions to the user …” and [0127] of Hök – “… The user compliance input provided by the secondary sensing unit 14 …The action compliance value is preferably parameterized to a set of integer values…The values may be determined from image or video analysis, wherein, for example upon the instruction “lean forward to the inlet”, value 1 is the user deliberately directing his/hers breath away from the sensor, value 2 is directing the breath towards the inlet, and value three is the user actually leaning close to the inlet…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Hök teaches a breath analyzing system that captures and analyzes video of user performing an intoxication examination to determine a user’s compliance to following instructions provided by the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of the input data comprises video data of the operator as taught by Hök, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine if a user has followed instructions as specified in at least [0127] of Hök.
Moreover, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose the operator profile comprises number of past failed authorization attempts of the operator.
However, Vardharajan, in the same field of endeavor teaches the operator profile comprises number of past failed authorization attempts of the operator (See at least [0065] – “… the user profile may include an activity profile and/or a user setting(s) provided by the user that the user intends to apply to vehicles…” and [0077] of Vardharajan – “…the activity profile may be provided before successful authentication of the user device 110… If authentication of the user device 110 fails, the vehicle 105 and/or user profile management system 125 may indicate to the user device 110 that the authentication failed, request alternative authentication data from the user device 110, and/or ignore the user device 110 (e.g., drop subsequent communications received from the user device 110…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Vardharajan teaches a vehicle system that authenticates user devices and profiles to vehicles and includes failed authorization attempts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of the operator profile comprises number of past failed authorization attempts of the operator as taught by Vardharajan, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to drop subsequent communications received from a user device as specified in at least [0077] of Vardharajan.
Claims 3, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Jones, Gester, Bertrand, and Arechiga-Gonzalez, Albakri, Hök, and Vardharajan, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Nothacker et al. US 20160318521 A1 (“Nothacker”) and Zhang et al. US 20230186685 A1 (“Zhang”).
For claim 3, Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose further comprising:
identifying a position and an orientation of each of the operator and an intoxication examination device with respect to video frame from the video data of the operator through the ML model.
However, Nothacker, in the same field of endeavor teaches further comprising:
identifying a position and an orientation of each of the operator and an intoxication examination device with respect to video frame from the video data of the operator through the ML model (See at least [0038] – “… the user characteristic can be determined … analyzing a photo taken with a camera of the mobile computing device or vehicle that includes visual indications that the user is drinking … producing an analysis of the likelihood that the user has been drinking based on …artificial intelligence techniques, such as neural networks…”, [0079] – “In a specific application of a portion of the method 100, as shown in FIGS. 4A-4J, a monitoring entity can be prompted… determine a location of the individual (e.g., as in FIGS. 4I and 4J…” and Fig. 4F of Nothacker – monitoring of positions and orientations of a user and breathalyzer to initiation testing). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Nothacker teaches a system that monitors intoxication of a user using an application that captures the positions and orientations of a user and a breathalyzer to initiate testing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of identifying a position and an orientation of each of the operator and an intoxication examination device with respect to video frame from the video data of the operator through the ML model as taught by Nothacker, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to report data associated with testing of an individual as specified in at least [0079] of Nothacker.
Furthermore, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose notifying the operator to remain within the video frame when at least one of the operator and the intoxication examination device is out of the video frame; and
providing real-time recommendations to the operator to continue remaining within the video frame.
However, Zhang, in the same field of endeavor teaches notifying the operator to remain within the video frame when at least one of the operator and the intoxication examination device is out of the video frame (See at least [0035] of Zhang – “The client interface component 204 then renders the instruction for the user to position his or her body in front of the client device 302 such that the image of the user's face is inside the box 406…”); and
providing real-time recommendations to the operator to continue remaining within the video frame (See at least [0037] of Zhang – “During this capture stage, the client interface component 204 can render an instruction on the client device 302 (e.g., instruction 502 shown in FIG. 5) for the user to maintain his or her current position while the sequence of frames 602 are being captured…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Zhang teaches a liveness detection system for a user that instructs a user to position themselves within a frame of a video and maintain their position within the frame for a sequence of video capturing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of notifying the operator to remain within the video frame when at least one of the operator and the intoxication examination device is out of the video frame as taught by Zhang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to verify physical presence of a live person at a client device as specified in at least the Abstract of Zhang.
For claim 11, Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor-executable instructions further cause the processor to
identify a position and an orientation of each of the operator and an intoxication examination device with respect to video frame from the video data of the operator through the ML model.
However, Nothacker, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions further cause the processor to
identify a position and an orientation of each of the operator and an intoxication examination device with respect to video frame from the video data of the operator through the ML model (See at least [0038] – “… the user characteristic can be determined … analyzing a photo taken with a camera of the mobile computing device or vehicle that includes visual indications that the user is drinking … producing an analysis of the likelihood that the user has been drinking based on …artificial intelligence techniques, such as neural networks…”, [0079] – “In a specific application of a portion of the method 100, as shown in FIGS. 4A-4J, a monitoring entity can be prompted… determine a location of the individual (e.g., as in FIGS. 4I and 4J…” and Fig. 4F of Nothacker – monitoring of positions and orientations of a user and breathalyzer to initiation testing). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Nothacker teaches a system that monitors intoxication of a user using an application that captures the positions and orientations of a user and a breathalyzer to initiate testing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of identifying a position and an orientation of each of the operator and an intoxication examination device with respect to video frame from the video data of the operator through the ML model as taught by Nothacker, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to report data associated with testing of an individual as specified in at least [0079] of Nothacker.
Furthermore, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose notify the operator to remain within the video frame when at least one of the operator and the intoxication examination device is out of the video frame; and
provide real-time recommendations to the operator to continue remaining within the video frame.
However, Zhang, in the same field of endeavor teaches notify the operator to remain within the video frame when at least one of the operator and the intoxication examination device is out of the video frame (See at least [0035] of Zhang – “The client interface component 204 then renders the instruction for the user to position his or her body in front of the client device 302 such that the image of the user's face is inside the box 406…”); and
provide real-time recommendations to the operator to continue remaining within the video frame (See at least [0037] of Zhang – “During this capture stage, the client interface component 204 can render an instruction on the client device 302 (e.g., instruction 502 shown in FIG. 5) for the user to maintain his or her current position while the sequence of frames 602 are being captured…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Zhang teaches a liveness detection system for a user that instructs a user to position themselves within a frame of a video and maintain their position within the frame for a sequence of video capturing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of notifying the operator to remain within the video frame when at least one of the operator and the intoxication examination device is out of the video frame as taught by Zhang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to verify physical presence of a live person at a client device as specified in at least the Abstract of Zhang.
For claim 19, Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose wherein the computer-executable instructions configured for:
identifying a position and an orientation of each of the operator and an intoxication examination device with respect to video frame from the video data of the operator through the ML model.
However, Nothacker, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions configured for:
identifying a position and an orientation of each of the operator and an intoxication examination device with respect to video frame from the video data of the operator through the ML model (See at least [0038] – “… the user characteristic can be determined … analyzing a photo taken with a camera of the mobile computing device or vehicle that includes visual indications that the user is drinking … producing an analysis of the likelihood that the user has been drinking based on …artificial intelligence techniques, such as neural networks…”, [0079] – “In a specific application of a portion of the method 100, as shown in FIGS. 4A-4J, a monitoring entity can be prompted… determine a location of the individual (e.g., as in FIGS. 4I and 4J…” and Fig. 4F of Nothacker – monitoring of positions and orientations of a user and breathalyzer to initiation testing). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Nothacker teaches a system that monitors intoxication of a user using an application that captures the positions and orientations of a user and a breathalyzer to initiate testing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of identifying a position and an orientation of each of the operator and an intoxication examination device with respect to video frame from the video data of the operator through the ML model as taught by Nothacker, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to report data associated with testing of an individual as specified in at least [0079] of Nothacker.
Furthermore, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose notifying the operator to remain within the video frame when at least one of the operator and the intoxication examination device is out of the video frame; and
providing real-time recommendations to the operator to continue remaining within the video frame.
However, Zhang, in the same field of endeavor teaches notifying the operator to remain within the video frame when at least one of the operator and the intoxication examination device is out of the video frame (See at least [0035] of Zhang – “The client interface component 204 then renders the instruction for the user to position his or her body in front of the client device 302 such that the image of the user's face is inside the box 406…”); and
providing real-time recommendations to the operator to continue remaining within the video frame (See at least [0037] of Zhang – “During this capture stage, the client interface component 204 can render an instruction on the client device 302 (e.g., instruction 502 shown in FIG. 5) for the user to maintain his or her current position while the sequence of frames 602 are being captured…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Zhang teaches a liveness detection system for a user that instructs a user to position themselves within a frame of a video and maintain their position within the frame for a sequence of video capturing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of notifying the operator to remain within the video frame when at least one of the operator and the intoxication examination device is out of the video frame as taught by Zhang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to verify physical presence of a live person at a client device as specified in at least the Abstract of Zhang.
Claims 4, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Jones, Gester, Bertrand, and Arechiga-Gonzalez, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kitazawa et al. US 20190221052 A1 (“Kitazawa”) and Phillips et al US 11161519 B2 (“Phillips”).
For claim 4, Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose wherein monitoring in real-time, the operator comprises:
identifying one or more anomalies in the asset operation; and
upon identification of the one or more anomalies, transmitting a notification about the one or more anomalies to the operator, the administrator, and the server.
However, Kitazawa, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein monitoring in real-time, the operator comprises:
identifying one or more anomalies in the asset operation (See at least [0037] of Kitazawa – “the driver management ECU 10 in the vehicle management device 2-1 determines whether the driver's condition is abnormal in accordance with the information on the driver's condition acquired… that the driver is in an abnormal condition of being unable to drive a vehicle…”); and
upon identification of the one or more anomalies, transmitting a notification about the one or more anomalies to the operator, the administrator, and the server (See at least [0038] of Kitazawa – “If the driver's condition is abnormal … the driver management ECU 10 transmits, to the center management device 3, as information to be transmitted at abnormal time, information indicating that the driver's condition is abnormal… transmitted at communication speed of the communication line (i.e. the mobile phone network 4… The travel management ECU 17 is configured to cause the display device 16 to display a message notifying the driver of abnormality occurrence, cause the speaker 15 to output the message by means of voice, alarm sound, or the like, or cause the vehicle external speaker 18 to output, to outer periphery of the vehicle, a message notifying that the driver's condition is abnormal by means of voice, alarm sound, or the like...”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Kitazawa teaches a driver condition monitoring system that determines when a driver is having difficulty operation a vehicle and transmits this information to a server, an operator at a management center, and the driver.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of identifying one or more anomalies in the asset operation as taught by Kitazawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to notify the driver of the abnormality occurrence as specified in at least [0038] of Kitazawa.
Furthermore, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose revoking the authorization of the operator to operate the asset.
However, Phillips, in the same field of endeavor teaches revoking the authorization of the operator to operate the asset (See at least Col. 44 lines 35-45 of Phillips – “… when the law enforcement external network device 63 receives the first message it may send a lock-out and/or disable vehicle signal to the vehicle 24 via the wireless network 35 to prevent the driver 42 from driving while impaired...”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Phillips teaches an impaired driving detection system that disables a vehicle from being operated when a driver has been determined to be impaired.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of revoking the authorization of the operator to operate the asset as taught by Phillips, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent the driver from driving while impaired as specified in at least Col. 44 lines 35-45 of Phillips.
For claim 12, Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor-executable instructions further cause the processor to monitor the operator in real-time by:
identify one or more anomalies in the asset operation; and
upon identification of the one or more anomalies, transmit a notification about the one or more anomalies to the operator, the administrator, and the server.
However, Kitazawa, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions further cause the processor to monitor the operator in real-time by:
identify one or more anomalies in the asset operation (See at least [0037] of Kitazawa – “the driver management ECU 10 in the vehicle management device 2-1 determines whether the driver's condition is abnormal in accordance with the information on the driver's condition acquired… that the driver is in an abnormal condition of being unable to drive a vehicle…”); and
upon identification of the one or more anomalies, transmit a notification about the one or more anomalies to the operator, the administrator, and the server (See at least [0038] of Kitazawa – “If the driver's condition is abnormal … the driver management ECU 10 transmits, to the center management device 3, as information to be transmitted at abnormal time, information indicating that the driver's condition is abnormal… transmitted at communication speed of the communication line (i.e. the mobile phone network 4… The travel management ECU 17 is configured to cause the display device 16 to display a message notifying the driver of abnormality occurrence, cause the speaker 15 to output the message by means of voice, alarm sound, or the like, or cause the vehicle external speaker 18 to output, to outer periphery of the vehicle, a message notifying that the driver's condition is abnormal by means of voice, alarm sound, or the like...”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Kitazawa teaches a driver condition monitoring system that determines when a driver is having difficulty operation a vehicle and transmits this information to a server, an operator at a management center, and the driver.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of identifying one or more anomalies in the asset operation as taught by Kitazawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to notify the driver of the abnormality occurrence as specified in at least [0038] of Kitazawa.
Furthermore, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose revoke the authorization of the operator to operate the asset.
However, Phillips, in the same field of endeavor teaches revoke the authorization of the operator to operate the asset (See at least Col. 44 lines 35-45 of Phillips – “… when the law enforcement external network device 63 receives the first message it may send a lock-out and/or disable vehicle signal to the vehicle 24 via the wireless network 35 to prevent the driver 42 from driving while impaired...”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Phillips teaches an impaired driving detection system that disables a vehicle from being operated when a driver has been determined to be impaired.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of revoking the authorization of the operator to operate the asset as taught by Phillips, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent the driver from driving while impaired as specified in at least Col. 44 lines 35-45 of Phillips.
For claim 20, Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose wherein the computer-executable instructions configured for:
identifying one or more anomalies in the asset operation; and
upon identification of the one or more anomalies, transmitting a notification about the one or more anomalies to the operator, the administrator, and the server.
However, Kitazawa, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions configured for:
identifying one or more anomalies in the asset operation (See at least [0037] of Kitazawa – “the driver management ECU 10 in the vehicle management device 2-1 determines whether the driver's condition is abnormal in accordance with the information on the driver's condition acquired… that the driver is in an abnormal condition of being unable to drive a vehicle…”); and
upon identification of the one or more anomalies, transmitting a notification about the one or more anomalies to the operator, the administrator, and the server (See at least [0038] of Kitazawa – “If the driver's condition is abnormal … the driver management ECU 10 transmits, to the center management device 3, as information to be transmitted at abnormal time, information indicating that the driver's condition is abnormal… transmitted at communication speed of the communication line (i.e. the mobile phone network 4… The travel management ECU 17 is configured to cause the display device 16 to display a message notifying the driver of abnormality occurrence, cause the speaker 15 to output the message by means of voice, alarm sound, or the like, or cause the vehicle external speaker 18 to output, to outer periphery of the vehicle, a message notifying that the driver's condition is abnormal by means of voice, alarm sound, or the like...”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Kitazawa teaches a driver condition monitoring system that determines when a driver is having difficulty operation a vehicle and transmits this information to a server, an operator at a management center, and the driver.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of identifying one or more anomalies in the asset operation as taught by Kitazawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to notify the driver of the abnormality occurrence as specified in at least [0038] of Kitazawa.
Furthermore, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose revoking the authorization of the operator to operate the asset.
However, Phillips, in the same field of endeavor teaches revoking the authorization of the operator to operate the asset (See at least Col. 44 lines 35-45 of Phillips – “… when the law enforcement external network device 63 receives the first message it may send a lock-out and/or disable vehicle signal to the vehicle 24 via the wireless network 35 to prevent the driver 42 from driving while impaired...”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Phillips teaches an impaired driving detection system that disables a vehicle from being operated when a driver has been determined to be impaired.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of revoking the authorization of the operator to operate the asset as taught by Phillips, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent the driver from driving while impaired as specified in at least Col. 44 lines 35-45 of Phillips.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Jones, Gester, Bertrand, and Arechiga-Gonzalez, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Penilla et al. US 20190263424 A1 (“Penilla”).
For claim 5, Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose further comprising
receiving, by the server, a login request from the operator prior to receiving the input data from the operator, wherein the login request comprises login credential details of the operator; and
validating, by the server, the login request based on the login credential details entered by the operator.
However, Penilla, in the same field of endeavor teaches further comprising
receiving, by the server, a login request from the operator prior to receiving the input data from the operator, wherein the login request comprises login credential details of the operator (See at least [0100] of Penilla – “… The user supplies login credentials to a vehicle login interface which are sent to the remote distributed or centralized user login authentication system…”); and
validating, by the server, the login request based on the login credential details entered by the operator (See at least [0100] of Penilla – “The processing logic receiving the login credentials processes the data and returns an authentication response to the user attempting to log in. If the authentication is a success, the vehicle the user attempted to log into has vehicle settings applied to it and the user is allowed to operate the vehicle…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Penilla teaches a system that allows users to operate a vehicle using an authentication process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of validating, by the server, the login request based on the login credential details entered by the operator as taught by Penilla, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow a user to operate a vehicle as specified in at least [0100] of Penilla.
For claim 13, Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor-executable instructions further cause the processor to:
receive a login request from the operator prior to receiving the input data from the operator, wherein the login request comprises login credential details of the operator; and
validate the login request based on the login credential details entered by the operator.
However, Penilla, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions further cause the processor to:
receive a login request from the operator prior to receiving the input data from the operator, wherein the login request comprises login credential details of the operator (See at least [0100] of Penilla – “… The user supplies login credentials to a vehicle login interface which are sent to the remote distributed or centralized user login authentication system…”); and
validate the login request based on the login credential details entered by the operator (See at least [0100] of Penilla – “The processing logic receiving the login credentials processes the data and returns an authentication response to the user attempting to log in. If the authentication is a success, the vehicle the user attempted to log into has vehicle settings applied to it and the user is allowed to operate the vehicle…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Penilla teaches a system that allows users to operate a vehicle using an authentication process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of validating, by the server, the login request based on the login credential details entered by the operator as taught by Penilla, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow a user to operate a vehicle as specified in at least [0100] of Penilla.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Jones, Gester, Bertrand, Arechiga-Gonzalez, and Penilla, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lokshin et al. US 20170118539 A1 (“Lokshin”).
For claim 6, Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose further comprising recording a video of the operator using a camera in real-time upon a successful validation of the login request.
However, Lokshin, in the same field of endeavor teaches further comprising recording a video of the operator using a camera in real-time upon a successful validation of the login request (See at least [0078] – “… user storage component 610 may store user information relating to the user capturing the video transmitted to database system 600… Each of these devices may be associated with a user (e.g., via an application requiring a login…” and [0089] of Lokshin – “As illustrated in FIG. 7, two cameras 706a, 706b may be installed to record performers 702a, 702b…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Lokshin teaches a video recording system for users that requires a login.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of recording a video of the operator using a camera in real-time upon a successful validation of the login request as taught by Lokshin, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to store user information relating to the user capturing videos as specified in at least [0078] of Lokshin.
For claim 14, Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor-executable instructions further cause the processor to record a video of the operator using a camera in real-time upon a successful validation of the login request.
However, Lokshin, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions further cause the processor to record a video of the operator using a camera in real-time upon a successful validation of the login request (See at least [0078] – “… user storage component 610 may store user information relating to the user capturing the video transmitted to database system 600… Each of these devices may be associated with a user (e.g., via an application requiring a login…” and [0089] of Lokshin – “As illustrated in FIG. 7, two cameras 706a, 706b may be installed to record performers 702a, 702b…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Lokshin teaches a video recording system for users that requires a login.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of recording a video of the operator using a camera in real-time upon a successful validation of the login request as taught by Lokshin, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to store user information relating to the user capturing videos as specified in at least [0078] of Lokshin.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Jones, Gester, Bertrand, Arechiga-Gonzalez, and Penilla, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Weeresinghe US 20210089635 A1 (“Weeresinghe”) and Dods et al. US 11769577 B1 (“Dods”).
For claim 7, Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose further comprising performing an operator verification using the ML model, based on a biometric identification test upon the successful validation of the login request.
However, Weeresinghe, in the same field of endeavor teaches further comprising performing an operator verification using the ML model, based on a biometric identification test upon the successful validation of the login request (See at least [0021]-[0025] of Weeresinghe – “… The user app 120 may be the primary user interface (UI) for a user, including subprocesses that support a number of functions. These functions may include user onboarding and login, capturing biometric information… The biometric service 150 is responsible for comparing and determining matches between baseline biometric indicia and reference biometric indicia as part of onboarding a user, and comparing current biometric indicia to baseline biometric indicia as part of verifying an … using probabilistic and machine learning algorithms…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Weeresinghe teaches a user verification system that uses machine learning to verify a user with biometric information once a user is logged in to the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of performing an operator verification using the ML model, based on a biometric identification test upon the successful validation of the login request as taught by Weeresinghe, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an indication to an institution that a user is who they claim to be as specified in at least the Abstract of Weeresinghe.
Furthermore, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose performing an operator verification using the ML model, based on an operator Identification Document (ID).
However, Dods, in the same field of endeavor teaches performing an operator verification using the ML model, based on an operator Identification Document (ID) (See at least Col. 33 lines 53-67 through Col. 34 lines 1-5 of Dods – “… the user will authenticate themselves with the system by capturing a picture of themselves holding a traditional government issued id (e.g., drivers license, passport, etc.). In case 801A, the user will authenticate themselves with the system by capturing a picture of themselves and providing contemporaneously, a link to a government issued id from the user's digital wallet (e.g., Apple Wallet™, Google Wallet™, or the like…This accreditor performs checking of credentials and documents, to support/verify the individual's claim that they are indeed the person they claim to be. In some implementations a neural network is trained to perform the accreditation functionality…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Dods teaches an identity authentication system that uses a government issued id and a neural network to verify user credentials and documents.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of performing an operator verification using the ML model, based on an operator Identification Document (ID) as taught by Dods, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to verify the individual's claim that they are indeed the person they claim to be as specified in at least Col. 33 lines 53-67 through Col. 34 lines 1-5 of Dods.
For claim 15, Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor-executable instructions further cause the processor to perform an operator verification using the ML model, based on a biometric identification test upon the successful validation of the login request.
However, Weeresinghe, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions further cause the processor to perform an operator verification using the ML model, based on a biometric identification test upon the successful validation of the login request (See at least [0021]-[0025] of Weeresinghe – “… The user app 120 may be the primary user interface (UI) for a user, including subprocesses that support a number of functions. These functions may include user onboarding and login, capturing biometric information… The biometric service 150 is responsible for comparing and determining matches between baseline biometric indicia and reference biometric indicia as part of onboarding a user, and comparing current biometric indicia to baseline biometric indicia as part of verifying an … using probabilistic and machine learning algorithms…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Weeresinghe teaches a user verification system that uses machine learning to verify a user with biometric information once a user is logged in to the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of performing an operator verification using the ML model, based on a biometric identification test upon the successful validation of the login request as taught by Weeresinghe, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an indication to an institution that a user is who they claim to be as specified in at least the Abstract of Weeresinghe.
Furthermore, Kobayashi also fails to specifically disclose perform an operator verification using the ML model, based on an operator Identification Document (ID).
However, Dods, in the same field of endeavor teaches perform an operator verification using the ML model, based on an operator Identification Document (ID) (See at least Col. 33 lines 53-67 through Col. 34 lines 1-5 of Dods – “… the user will authenticate themselves with the system by capturing a picture of themselves holding a traditional government issued id (e.g., drivers license, passport, etc.). In case 801A, the user will authenticate themselves with the system by capturing a picture of themselves and providing contemporaneously, a link to a government issued id from the user's digital wallet (e.g., Apple Wallet™, Google Wallet™, or the like…This accreditor performs checking of credentials and documents, to support/verify the individual's claim that they are indeed the person they claim to be. In some implementations a neural network is trained to perform the accreditation functionality…”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Dods teaches an identity authentication system that uses a government issued id and a neural network to verify user credentials and documents.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of performing an operator verification using the ML model, based on an operator Identification Document (ID) as taught by Dods, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to verify the individual's claim that they are indeed the person they claim to be as specified in at least Col. 33 lines 53-67 through Col. 34 lines 1-5 of Dods.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Jones, Gester, Bertrand, and Arechiga-Gonzalez, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katz US 20220203996 A1 (“Katz”).
For claim 8, Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose further comprising: storing the input data, the real-time video data, and a number of failed authorization attempts by the operator in a historical dataset associated with the operator; and maintaining a past behaviour record of the operator in the operator profile based on the historical dataset associated with the operator using the ML model.
However, Katz, in the same field of endeavor teaches further comprising: storing the input data, the real-time video data, and a number of failed authorization attempts by the operator in a historical dataset associated with the operator; and maintaining a past behaviour record of the operator in the operator profile based on the historical dataset associated with the operator using the ML model (See at least [0080] of Katz – “… the processor may be configured to implement one or more machine learning techniques and algorithms to facilitate determination of a driver's level of control over the vehicle. The term “machine learning” is non-limiting, and may include techniques such as, but not limited to, computer vision learning, deep machine learning, deep learning, and deep neural networks, neural networks, artificial intelligence, and online learning, i.e. learning during operation of the system. Machine learning algorithms may detect one or more patterns in collected sensor data, such as image data, proximity sensor data, and data from other types of sensors disclosed herein. A machine learning component implemented by the processor may be trained using one or more training data sets based on correlations between collected sensor data or saved data and user behavior related variables of interest… training data may comprise image data associated with driver exhibiting behaviors …”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Katz teaches a system that uses machine learning to predict a driver’s level of control of a vehicle based on collected and stored data and a driver’s behaviors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of maintaining a past behaviour record of the operator in the operator profile based on the historical dataset associated with the operator using the ML model as taught by Katz, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate determination of a driver’s level of control over a vehicle as specified in at least [0080] of Katz.
For claim 16, Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor-executable instructions further cause the processor to: store the input data, the real-time video data, and a number of failed authorization attempts by the operator in a historical dataset associated with the operator; and maintain a past behaviour record of the operator in the operator profile based on the historical dataset associated with the operator using the ML model.
However, Katz, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions further cause the processor to: store the input data, the real-time video data, and a number of failed authorization attempts by the operator in a historical dataset associated with the operator; and maintain a past behaviour record of the operator in the operator profile based on the historical dataset associated with the operator using the ML model (See at least [0080] of Katz – “… the processor may be configured to implement one or more machine learning techniques and algorithms to facilitate determination of a driver's level of control over the vehicle. The term “machine learning” is non-limiting, and may include techniques such as, but not limited to, computer vision learning, deep machine learning, deep learning, and deep neural networks, neural networks, artificial intelligence, and online learning, i.e. learning during operation of the system. Machine learning algorithms may detect one or more patterns in collected sensor data, such as image data, proximity sensor data, and data from other types of sensors disclosed herein. A machine learning component implemented by the processor may be trained using one or more training data sets based on correlations between collected sensor data or saved data and user behavior related variables of interest… training data may comprise image data associated with driver exhibiting behaviors …”). Thus, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control system that authorizes access to a driver to operate a vehicle when it is determined that a driver is not in an intoxicated state, while Katz teaches a system that uses machine learning to predict a driver’s level of control of a vehicle based on collected and stored data and a driver’s behaviors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as disclosed in Kobayashi to include the feature of maintaining a past behaviour record of the operator in the operator profile based on the historical dataset associated with the operator using the ML model as taught by Katz, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate determination of a driver’s level of control over a vehicle as specified in at least [0080] of Katz.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL J HERRERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/M.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668