Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non- rejection. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 10/30/2025, amending claims 1-2, 5-10, and 15-20.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 11/14/2023, and 10/30/2025 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/30/2025 has been entered.
Continuation
This application is a continuation of U.S. application 16/050,905 (filed 07/31/2018, now U.S. Patent No. 11,928,621). See MPEP §201.08. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Applications. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Applications are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 102/103- No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below. Examiner point out that the claims now recite the allowable subject matter in the parent U.S. Patent Application No. 16/050,905 (to which this current case claims priority), first and second safety scores (see PTAB Decision on Appeal in U.S. Application No. 16/050,905, at Page 4)
The previously pending double patenting rejection, will be maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments date 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Pages 10-11 of the remarks):
Applicant respectfully submits that Independent Claim 1 is integrated into a practical application because it is directed to a solution rooted in technology. This is best seen in the prosecution of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/050,905 (to which this current case claims priority), where the claims were found to be directed to patent-eligible subject matter
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recite the additional limitation a non-transitory computer-readable media, processor, communication interface, memory, a system, a sensor, a machine learning model, a display of a mobile system are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
With regard to applicant argument toward U.S. Patent Application No. 16/050,905. First, examiner point out that with the new updated guidance and the office examples which are directed to the machine learning model concepts. The instant application is not integrated to a practical application and it’s a case by case basis to determine if the application is integrated to a practical application. Also, in applicant specification paragraph ¶[00147] disclose that the machine learning (which could be any model or statistical techniques and/or other such techniques in view of [0035]) is updated using additional driving data, trips data, passenger data, conditions data. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). All of these additional elements are not significantly more because these, again, are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer; October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “training/retraining/trained machine learning models” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea. (“[M]erely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea”); 2019 Revised Guidance at 55. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. “[M]erely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea”); 2019 Revised Guidance at 55. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical solution to a technical problem.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
The Alice framework, step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Independent claims do not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. The claims include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include a non-transitory computer-readable media, processor, communication interface, memory, a system, a sensor, a machine learning model, a display of a mobile system.
Examiner asserts that a non-transitory computer-readable media, processor, communication interface, memory, a system, a sensor, a machine learning model, a display of a mobile system are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Further, with regard to mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
In addition, [0024-0025], of the specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of Application No. 16/050,905 (filed , now U.S. Patent No. 11,928,621). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims in each application recite substantially similar limitations directed to a process for scheduling a patient appointment.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 in the referenced patent and claim 1 recited substantially similar limitation. however, claim 1 in the referenced patent is more narrow. The breadth of claim 1 of the instant application would read on the more narrow claim 1 of the referenced patent. Thus claim 1 in the instant application is an obvious variant of claim 1 in the reference application.
Claim Rejections -35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-14 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 15-18 are directed to a computing platform (machine). Claims 19-20 are directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 15 and 19 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A method comprising:
receiving sensor data wirelessly collected during operation of a vehicle, wherein the sensor data is associated with a plurality of timestamps associated with recorded audio signals to detect a voice of at least one passenger of the vehicle;
assigning, based on the timestamps, a subset of the sensor data to one or more periods during which a driver was transporting passengers associated with a shared mobility service, and a second subset of the sensor data to one or more second periods during which the driver was not transporting passengers associated with the shared mobility service;
training one or more machine learning model to determine (i) a safety score indicating a performance of the driver during the one or more first periods based on the first subset of the sensor data, and (ii) a second safety score indicating a performance of the driver during the one or more second periods based on the second subset of the sensor data;
determining driver-specific feedback based on the first safety score and/or the second safety score, wherein the driver-specific feedback is associated with a condition of the one or more first periods and/or the one or more second periods;
causing real-time driver-specific feedback including the driver-specific feedback to be presented by a mobile system associated with the driver in real-time upon a next detection of the condition;
retraining the one or more machine learning model based on additional real-time driving data collected after the driver-specific feedback is caused to be presented; and
causing updated real-time driver-specific feedback based on updated safety scores calculated by the retrained one or more machine learning model to be presented by the mobile system.
The Applicant's Specification titled "CONTROLLING VEHICLES USING CONTEXTUAL DRIVER AND/OR RIDER DATA BASED ON AUTOMATIC PASSENGER DETECTION AND MOBILITY STATUS" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for collecting and analyzing data to manage the activities, behaviors, relationships, and interactions of drivers and passengers. In example aspects, based on collected data determine a safety scores and provide feedback to the driver based on the score" (Spec. [0002]). Thus, data analytics to the Specification is a business concept being addressed by the claimed invention.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 12, and 18 recites the abstract idea of providing updated real-time driver feedback based on updated calculated safety score.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 15, and 19 are directed to the abstract idea of managing the personal behavior and relationships or interactions of drivers/passengers to provide feedback based on different data. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of determining safety scores and providing feedback to the driver. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the independent claims 1, 12, and 18 recites the abstract idea of managing the personal behavior and relationships or interactions of drivers and passengers. which pertain to "social activities, teaching, and following rules or instruction" expressly categorized under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Furthermore, the claim limitations are also directed towards mathematical concepts because consistent with this description, the limitations recite a method that receives sensor data collected during operation of a vehicle and determines, based on the sensor data, first periods when the driver was transporting passengers with the shared mobility service. The collected data are analyzed to determine safety scores for the different time periods, and drivers provided with the updated feedback. A portion of a trip fare provided to the driver may be calculated based on the safety score. Data are analyzed using statistical and/mathematical techniques. Which pertain to “mathematical calculation” expressly categorized under mathematical concepts. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Furthermore, the claim limitations are also directed towards mental processes because the limitations recite determine based on collected data a driver was transporting passengers, determining a driver-specific feedback based on the safety score and providing the driver-specific feedback to the driver. Which is “observation, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” expressly categorized under mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-14, 16-18, and 20 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 (similarly claim 16) further comprising determining the one or more first periods by analyzing a recorded audio signal of the recorded audio signals to detect a voice of at least one passenger of the vehicle.
claim 3 wherein analyzing the recorded audio signal to detect the voice of the at least one passenger comprises:
determining, based on one or more acoustic properties of the recorded audio signal, whether the recorded audio signal contains a media program; and
detecting the voice of the at least one passenger responsive to determining that the recorded audio signal does not contain a media program.
claim 4 wherein analyzing the recorded audio signal to detect the voice of the at least one passenger comprises:
generating, from the recorded audio signal, a first voice print;
comparing the first voice print to a second voice print associated with the driver; and
determining, based on the comparison, that the first voice print does not match the second voice print.
claim 5 (similarly claim 17) further comprising determining the one or more periods comprises analyzing a wireless signal to determine a number of mobile devices present in the vehicle.
claim 6 further comprising calculating a safety cost per distance for the one or more first periods and/or the one or more second periods.
claim 7 (similarly claims 18 and 20) determining an estimated safety cost for the driver;
determine, (based on an initial safety prediction claim 20) determining an actual safety cost based on the first safety score and/or the second safety score;
subtracting the actual safety cost from the estimated safety cost to yield a balance; and
causing a transaction with the shared mobility service, wherein the transaction is based on the balance.
claim 8 wherein the first safety score and/or the second safety score comprises multiple sub-scores corresponding to a plurality of periods.
claim 9 further comprising determining, based on the safety score, a percentage of a fare to award to the driver.
Claim 10 further comprising determining, based on the sensor data, a number of passengers in the vehicle during the one or more first periods.
Claim 11 wherein the mobile system comprises a mobile device associated with the driver of the vehicle, wherein the real-time driver-specific feedback comprises an indication of the first safety score and/or the second safety score and a recommendation for improving the first safety score and/or the second safety score.
Claim 12 further comprising verifying the sensor data against data from one or more devices associated with the passengers.
Claim 13 further comprising passively monitoring the one or more devices associated with the passengers by detecting one or more wireless signals.
Claim 14 wherein the further comprising enriching the sensor data with the data from the one or more devices associated with the passengers, wherein the determination of the first safety score is based on the enriched sensor data.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 15, and 19.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-20 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claim 1 (similarly claims 15 and 19) include the following bolded additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. A sensor, a machine learning model, a display of a mobile system
Claim 15. A computing platform, processor, a communication interface, memory, a sensor, a machine learning model, a display of a mobile system
Claim 19. A non-transitory computer-readable media, processor, communication interface, memory, a sensor, a machine learning model, a display of a mobile system
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claim 1 (similarly claims 15 and claim 19) pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable media, processor, communication interface, memory, a system, a sensor, a machine learning model, a display of a mobile system. which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2).
The additional elements of a “training and retraining the machine learning model”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “training and retraining the machine learning model” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea.
The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, the computing platform includes generic processors, memories, and communication interfaces. Paragraph [0024-0025] of the specification disclose the memory stores instructions that are executed by processor 111 to cause profile computing platform 110 to compute score, rank drivers, and perform functions of the shared mobility service management and in [0028], Communication interface 117 can be wired and/or wireless network interfaces that connect platform 110 to networks. Also, see [0030] and [0051] disclose data can be engine, performance, navigation, position, speed, acceleration, and braking data. The sensors are generic devices. Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, 15, and 19 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for receiving sensor data collected during operation of a vehicle and determines, based on the sensor data, first periods when the driver was transporting passengers with the shared mobility service. The collected data are analyzed to determine safety scores for the different time periods, and drivers provided with the updated feedback and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention uses received sensor data collected during operation of a vehicle and determines, based on the sensor data, first periods when the driver was transporting passengers with the shared mobility service. The collected data are analyzed to determine safety scores for the different time periods, and drivers provided with the updated feedback. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-14, 16-18, and 20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 15, and 19 respectively, for example, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the additional elements: claim 4 generating, from the recorded audio signal, a first voice print. This limitation is at most merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. The application may implement voice recognition or use voice prints to avoid detecting media program (see [0055-0060]). This high level, generic description of collecting and processing audio and wireless signal data confirms the abstract nature of the claims, which also lack any technical implementation details of the process or techniques used to capture or process this data to determine the presence of passengers. claim 5 (similarly claim 17) wherein determining the one or more first periods comprises analyzing a wireless signal to determine a number of mobile devices present in the vehicle. This limitation is at most merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 15, and 19, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 15, and 19, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of Claims 1, 15, and 19. a non-transitory computer-readable media, processor, communication interface, memory, a system, a sensor, a machine learning model, a display of a mobile system. claim 4 generating, from the recorded audio signal, a first voice print; This limitation is at most merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. The application may implement voice recognition or use voice prints to avoid detecting media program (see [0055-0060]). This high level, generic description of collecting and processing audio and wireless signal data confirms the abstract nature of the claims, which also lack any technical implementation details of the process or techniques used to capture or process this data to determine the presence of passengers. claim 5 (similarly claim 17) a wireless signal to determine a number of mobile devices present in the vehicle. This limitation is at most merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to receiving sensor data collected during operation of a vehicle and determines, based on the sensor data, first periods when the driver was transporting passengers with the shared mobility service. The collected data are analyzed to determine safety scores for the different time periods, and drivers provided with the updated feedback.
Claims 1-20 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will be followed/begin by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be place to further explain a rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, No art rejections has been put forth in the rejection.
Closest prior art to the invention include Kislovskiy et al. US 2018/0342033: Trip classification system for on-demand transportation services, Pan et al. US 2017/0138749: Method and system for shared transport, Huls et al. US 2017/0365007: Traveling-based insurance ratings, and Ellen Huet, Uber Tests Taking Even More From Its Drivers With 30% Commission May 18, 2015 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2015/05/18/uber-new-uberx-tiered-commission-30-percent/#5ee5b0a043f6. None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims, assigning, based on the timestamps, a subset of the sensor data to one or more periods during which a driver was transporting passengers associated with a shared mobility service, and a second subset of the sensor data to one or more second periods during which the driver was not transporting passengers associated with the shared mobility service; training one or more machine learning model to determine (i) a safety score indicating a performance of the driver during the one or more first periods based on the first subset of the sensor data, and (ii) a second safety score indicating a performance of the driver during the one or more second periods based on the second subset of the sensor data;”. The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pan et al. US 2017/0138749: Method and system for shared transport.
Miles et al. US 2016/0198306: Systems and methods for providing vehicles and equipment suggestions using a mobile device.
Brinkmann et al. US 9,104,535: Traffic based driving analysis.
Catten US 2010/0035632: System and method for detecting use of a wireless device while driving.
Remboki et al. US 6,925,425: Method and apparatus for vehicle operator performance assessment and improvement.
Ellen Huet, Uber Tests Taking Even More From Its Drivers With 30% Commission May 18, 2015 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2015/05/18/uber-new-uberx-tiered-commission-30-percent/#5ee5b0a043f6
Guidotti, Riccardo, et al. "Never drive alone: Boosting carpooling with network analysis." Information Systems 64 (2017): 237-257.
Ong, eng Hwee WO 2016/028228: System, method, and apparatus for determining driving risk.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, Patricia Munson can be reached on (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624