Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) which forms the basis for all unpatentability rejections:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-11, and 15-17 are unpatentable under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Madden et al., U.S. 2024/0017737 (see IDS).
On claim 1, cites:
A method, comprising:
monitoring one or more driving characteristics by at least one first sensor of a vehicle;
[0060] velocity of the car
monitoring one or more environmental characteristics by at least one second sensor of the vehicle;
figure 4 and [0052-53], location.
determining, based on first data of the first sensor and second data of the second sensor, at least one deviant driving characteristic and an associated environmental characteristic;
[0061] By way of example, a variety of alerts can be generated by embodiments of the present invention, including alerts related to speeding, hard acceleration, hard braking, the distance to vehicle in front of the driver's vehicle, lane drift, driving the wrong way on a one way road, breaking a geo-fence or entering a restricted area, hard cornering, drifting, driver fatigue, entering a school zone, entering a wild life zone, distracted driving, detection that a tag (e.g., a DriveWell Tag) is loose, or the like.
determining a deviant driving behavior based on the deviant driving characteristic and the associated environmental characteristic;
see above, speeding.
and
indicating, to a driver of the vehicle, a corrective action for correcting the deviant driving behavior.
[0057] In block 514, data processing block 120 may identify, based on the received GPS data and contextual data, whether there is at least one triggering condition that could affect a user's driving behavior. As described more fully below, based on the GPS data and the contextual data, embodiments can provide corresponding proactive alerts of such condition(s) in order to warn the user to take corrective actions beforehand.
On claim 2, Madden cites:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
indicating the corrective action by at least one of:
a user interface of the vehicle; or
a user interface of a mobile device.
[0030] mobile device
[0044] Turning back to FIG. 3, after the driver is notified, subsequent behavior data may be collected from the device at step 340. At step 345, changes in behavior are determined using, in one example, A/B testing. For example, if an audio alert for a “hard brake” was provided at step 335, subsequent acceleration data can be collected and analyzed to determine whether any hard braking occurred after the notification. The results of this analysis may be used to determine the efficacy of the notification in modifying or improving the driver's driving behavior. The type and timing of future notifications to the driver can be modified based on the efficacy of previous notifications.
On claim 3, Madden cites:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
indicating the corrective action by at least one of:
a graphical display;
an audio speaker;
[0027] Notification block 140 may report the results of analysis of sensor data performed by the data processing block 120 to a user of the mobile device 101 via a display, a speaker, a haptic alert (e.g., a vibration), etc. (not shown). The terms “notification” and “alert” may be used interchangeably herein.
a visible light; or
a vibrating actuator.
On claim 7, Madden cites:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first data comprises at least one of: a vehicle speed; a vehicle acceleration; a vehicle braking; a vehicle yaw, pitch, or roll; a tire pressure; a wheel traction; a gear selection; an engine revolutions per minute; an engine temperature; a brake temperature; a tire temperature; a battery temperature; a battery state-of-charge; an undercarriage clearance; or a suspension position.
[0001] Mobile devices, including smartphones, have been utilized in vehicles to measure driving performance of drivers by collecting and processing data from the device's location sensor, accelerometer, gyroscope, and more. Typical factors measured include hard braking, rapid acceleration, hard cornering or turning, speeding, and phone distraction.
On claim 8, Madden cites:
The method of claim 1, wherein the second sensor comprises at least one of: an interior camera; an exterior camera; a lidar; a radar; a sonar; an ultrasonic sensor; an infrared sensor; or a global navigation satellite system.
[0028] Some embodiments of the present invention are described using examples where driving data is collected using a mobile device 101, and these examples are not limited to any particular mobile device. As examples, a variety of mobile devices including sensors such as GPS receivers 110, accelerometers 112, gyroscopes 116, magnetometers 114, microphones 118, compasses 119, barometers 113, location determination systems such as global positioning system (GPS) receivers 110, communications capabilities, and the like are included within the scope of some embodiments.
On claim 9, Madden cites:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations
[0052] computer, [0063] algorithms, [0031] memory
comprising:
monitoring one or more driving characteristics by at least one first sensor of a vehicle;
[0060] velocity of the car
monitoring one or more environmental characteristics by at least one second sensor of the vehicle;
figure 4 and [0052-53], location.
determining, based on first data of the first sensor and second data of the second sensor, at least one deviant driving characteristic and an associated environmental characteristic;
[0061] By way of example, a variety of alerts can be generated by embodiments of the present invention, including alerts related to speeding, hard acceleration, hard braking, the distance to vehicle in front of the driver's vehicle, lane drift, driving the wrong way on a one way road, breaking a geo-fence or entering a restricted area, hard cornering, drifting, driver fatigue, entering a school zone, entering a wild life zone, distracted driving, detection that a tag (e.g., a DriveWell Tag) is loose, or the like.
determining a deviant driving behavior based on the deviant driving characteristic and the associated environmental characteristic;
see above, speeding.
and
indicating, to a driver of the vehicle, a corrective action for correcting the deviant driving behavior.
[0057] In block 514, data processing block 120 may identify, based on the received GPS data and contextual data, whether there is at least one triggering condition that could affect a user's driving behavior. As described more fully below, based on the GPS data and the contextual data, embodiments can provide corresponding proactive alerts of such condition(s) in order to warn the user to take corrective actions beforehand.
On claim 10, Madden cites:
The medium of claim 9, the operations further comprising: indicating the corrective action by at least one of: a user interface of the vehicle; or
a user interface of a mobile device.
[0030] mobile device
[0044] Turning back to FIG. 3, after the driver is notified, subsequent behavior data may be collected from the device at step 340. At step 345, changes in behavior are determined using, in one example, A/B testing. For example, if an audio alert for a “hard brake” was provided at step 335, subsequent acceleration data can be collected and analyzed to determine whether any hard braking occurred after the notification. The results of this analysis may be used to determine the efficacy of the notification in modifying or improving the driver's driving behavior. The type and timing of future notifications to the driver can be modified based on the efficacy of previous notifications.
On claim 11, Madden cites:
The medium of claim 9, the operations further comprising: indicating the corrective action by at least one of: a graphical display; an audio speaker; a visible light; or a vibrating actuator.
[0044] Turning back to FIG. 3, after the driver is notified, subsequent behavior data may be collected from the device at step 340. At step 345, changes in behavior are determined using, in one example, A/B testing. For example, if an audio alert for a “hard brake” was provided at step 335, subsequent acceleration data can be collected and analyzed to determine whether any hard braking occurred after the notification. The results of this analysis may be used to determine the efficacy of the notification in modifying or improving the driver's driving behavior. The type and timing of future notifications to the driver can be modified based on the efficacy of previous notifications.
On claim 15, Madden cites:
A system, comprising:
one or more memories;
and
one or more processors configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories
[0031] FIG. 2 is a system diagram illustrating a driving behavior detection, alert and modification system 200 according to an embodiment of the invention. The system illustrated in FIG. 2 can be utilized for collecting driving data and can include a server 201 that communicates with mobile device 101. In some embodiments, data processing block 120 of mobile device 101 server 201 may perform functions illustrated by components included in server 201, including, but not limited to functions performed by vector analyzer 258, vector determiner 259, external information receiver 212, classifier 214, data collection frequency engine 252, and driver detection engine 254. Not all of the functionality illustrated in FIG. 2 is utilized in some embodiments. Thus, the functions of these components can be executed by mobile device 101 in conjunction with memory 124. In other embodiments, these functions are performed by the components of server 201 illustrated in FIG. 2. Server 201 may also include data storage 256. Thus, it is important to note that, while not shown, one or more of the components shown operating within server 201 can operate fully or partially within mobile device 101, and vice versa.
to:
monitor one or more driving characteristics by at least one first sensor of a vehicle;
[0060] velocity of the car
monitor one or more environmental characteristics by at least one second sensor of the vehicle;
figure 4 and [0052-53], location.
determine, based on first data of the first sensor and second data of the second sensor, at least one deviant driving characteristic and an associated environmental characteristic;
[0061] By way of example, a variety of alerts can be generated by embodiments of the present invention, including alerts related to speeding, hard acceleration, hard braking, the distance to vehicle in front of the driver's vehicle, lane drift, driving the wrong way on a one way road, breaking a geo-fence or entering a restricted area, hard cornering, drifting, driver fatigue, entering a school zone, entering a wild life zone, distracted driving, detection that a tag (e.g., a DriveWell Tag) is loose, or the like.
determine a deviant driving behavior based on the deviant driving characteristic and the associated environmental characteristic;
see above, speeding.
and
indicate, to a driver of the vehicle, a corrective action for correcting the deviant driving behavior.
[0057] In block 514, data processing block 120 may identify, based on the received GPS data and contextual data, whether there is at least one triggering condition that could affect a user's driving behavior. As described more fully below, based on the GPS data and the contextual data, embodiments can provide corresponding proactive alerts of such condition(s) in order to warn the user to take corrective actions beforehand.
On claim 16, Madden cites:
The system of claim 15, the instructions including instructions to: indicate the corrective action by at least one of: a user interface of the vehicle; or
a user interface of a mobile device.
[0030] mobile device
[0044] Turning back to FIG. 3, after the driver is notified, subsequent behavior data may be collected from the device at step 340. At step 345, changes in behavior are determined using, in one example, A/B testing. For example, if an audio alert for a “hard brake” was provided at step 335, subsequent acceleration data can be collected and analyzed to determine whether any hard braking occurred after the notification. The results of this analysis may be used to determine the efficacy of the notification in modifying or improving the driver's driving behavior. The type and timing of future notifications to the driver can be modified based on the efficacy of previous notifications.
On claim 17, Madden cites:
The system of claim 15, the instructions including instructions to: indicate the corrective action by at least one of:
a graphical display;
an audio speaker;
a visible light; or
a vibrating actuator.
[0027] Notification block 140 may report the results of analysis of sensor data performed by the data processing block 120 to a user of the mobile device 101 via a display, a speaker, a haptic alert (e.g., a vibration), etc. (not shown). The terms “notification” and “alert” may be used interchangeably herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 6, 12, 14, 18, and 20 are unpatentable under 35 USC 103 over Madden et al., U.S. 2024/0017737 (see IDS).
On claim 4, Madden cites except as underlined:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: storing at least one deviant driving behavior in a non-transitory computer-readable memory for retrieval by the driver.
[0031] FIG. 2 is a system diagram illustrating a driving behavior detection, alert and modification system 200 according to an embodiment of the invention. The system illustrated in FIG. 2 can be utilized for collecting driving data and can include a server 201 that communicates with mobile device 101. In some embodiments, data processing block 120 of mobile device 101 server 201 may perform functions illustrated by components included in server 201, including, but not limited to functions performed by vector analyzer 258, vector determiner 259, external information receiver 212, classifier 214, data collection frequency engine 252, and driver detection engine 254. Not all of the functionality illustrated in FIG. 2 is utilized in some embodiments. Thus, the functions of these components can be executed by mobile device 101 in conjunction with memory 124. In other embodiments, these functions are performed by the components of server 201 illustrated in FIG. 2. Server 201 may also include data storage 256. Thus, it is important to note that, while not shown, one or more of the components shown operating within server 201 can operate fully or partially within mobile device 101, and vice versa.
And
[0050] In order to conserve battery and processing resources, a limited amount of data can be obtained and cached for use in conjunction with the various methods described herein. As an example, data in the vicinity of the driver's residence, workplace, or the like, for example, data related to traffic devices and traffic conditions within a radius of 5 miles could be downloaded to the driver's mobile device.
Regarding the excepted: for retrieval by the driver, as discussed above, Madden discloses driver data being downloaded to the cited mobile device. Madden doesn’t specifically disclose the driver retrieving the data from the mobile device. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Madden the option of the driver downloading the recorded data on the mobile device. One of ordinary skill would have allowed the driver to retrieve the driver’s data from the mobile device for review and feedback of his driving performance.
On claim 6, Madden cites except as underlined:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: indicating, to the driver, a reminder of the corrective action consisting of a shortened, truncated, or alternative version of the indicated corrective action.
Madden discloses:
[0001] Mobile devices, including smartphones, have been utilized in vehicles to measure driving performance of drivers by collecting and processing data from the device's location sensor, accelerometer, gyroscope, and more. Typical factors measured include hard braking, rapid acceleration, hard cornering or turning, speeding, and phone distraction.
[0092] In block 702, the method includes determining an alert modality. As described more
fully below, the alert modalities can include, but are not limited to, one or more beeps, a voice prompt, a song selected by the user, a visual alert, vibration of the mobile device, and the like, and the alert characteristics can include, but are not limited to, alert volume, the alerting duration, the timing of the alert, and the like.
Madden doesn’t specifically disclose a reminder of the corrective action consisting of a shortened, truncated, or alternative version of the indicated corrective action. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Madden, based on the disclosed embodiment above, the feature of truncating, shortening, or abbreviating a detected warning into a shortened version of the actual warning.
As disclosed above, a voice prompt may include at least a phrase or sentence telling the driver of a detected violation and a warning for the driver to slow down if the violation detected is speeding. Madden discloses the option of including audio warnings that include at least a “beep,” that is, a short audio signal to indicate to the driver a speeding instead of a phrase or sentence. One of ordinary skill would have included this feature to quickly warning the driver of a violation and a admonishment to correct the violation through an association of selected but abbreviated audio prompts without having to include a verbal warning, which is likely longer than a short “beep.”
On claim 12, Madden cites except as underlined:
The medium of claim 9, the operations further comprising: storing at least one deviant driving behavior in a second non-transitory computer-readable memory for retrieval by the driver.
[0031] FIG. 2 is a system diagram illustrating a driving behavior detection, alert and modification system 200 according to an embodiment of the invention. The system illustrated in FIG. 2 can be utilized for collecting driving data and can include a server 201 that communicates with mobile device 101. In some embodiments, data processing block 120 of mobile device 101 server 201 may perform functions illustrated by components included in server 201, including, but not limited to functions performed by vector analyzer 258, vector determiner 259, external information receiver 212, classifier 214, data collection frequency engine 252, and driver detection engine 254. Not all of the functionality illustrated in FIG. 2 is utilized in some embodiments. Thus, the functions of these components can be executed by mobile device 101 in conjunction with memory 124. In other embodiments, these functions are performed by the components of server 201 illustrated in FIG. 2. Server 201 may also include data storage 256. Thus, it is important to note that, while not shown, one or more of the components shown operating within server 201 can operate fully or partially within mobile device 101, and vice versa.
And
[0050] In order to conserve battery and processing resources, a limited amount of data can be obtained and cached for use in conjunction with the various methods described herein. As an example, data in the vicinity of the driver's residence, workplace, or the like, for example, data related to traffic devices and traffic conditions within a radius of 5 miles could be downloaded to the driver's mobile device.
Regarding the excepted: for retrieval by the driver, as discussed above, Madden discloses driver data being downloaded to the cited mobile device. Madden doesn’t specifically disclose the driver retrieving the data from the mobile device. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Madden the option of the driver downloading the recorded data on the mobile device. One of ordinary skill would have allowed the driver to retrieve the driver’s data from the mobile device for review and feedback of his driving performance.
On claim 14, Madden cites except as underlined:
The medium of claim 9, the operations further comprising: indicating, to the driver, a reminder of the corrective action consisting of a shortened, truncated, or alternative version of the indicated corrective action.
Madden discloses:
[0001] Mobile devices, including smartphones, have been utilized in vehicles to measure driving performance of drivers by collecting and processing data from the device's location sensor, accelerometer, gyroscope, and more. Typical factors measured include hard braking, rapid acceleration, hard cornering or turning, speeding, and phone distraction.
[0092] In block 702, the method includes determining an alert modality. As described more
fully below, the alert modalities can include, but are not limited to, one or more beeps, a voice prompt, a song selected by the user, a visual alert, vibration of the mobile device, and the like, and the alert characteristics can include, but are not limited to, alert volume, the alerting duration, the timing of the alert, and the like.
Madden doesn’t specifically disclose consisting of a shortened, truncated, or alternative version of the indicated corrective action.. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Madden, based on the disclosed embodiment above, the feature of truncating, shortening, or abbreviating a detected warning into a shortened version of the actual warning.
As disclosed above, a voice prompt may include at least a phrase or sentence telling the driver of a detected violation and a warning for the driver to slow down if the violation detected is speeding. Madden discloses the option of including audio warnings that include at least a “beep,” that is, a short audio signal to indicate to the driver a speeding instead of a phrase or sentence. One of ordinary skill would have included this feature to quickly warning the driver of a violation and a admonishment to correct the violation through an association of selected but abbreviated audio prompts without having to include a verbal warning, which is likely longer than a short “beep.”
On claim 18, Madden cites except as underlined:
The system of claim 15, the instructions including instructions to: store at least one deviant driving behavior in a non-transitory computer-readable memory for retrieval by the driver.
[0031] FIG. 2 is a system diagram illustrating a driving behavior detection, alert and modification system 200 according to an embodiment of the invention. The system illustrated in FIG. 2 can be utilized for collecting driving data and can include a server 201 that communicates with mobile device 101. In some embodiments, data processing block 120 of mobile device 101 server 201 may perform functions illustrated by components included in server 201, including, but not limited to functions performed by vector analyzer 258, vector determiner 259, external information receiver 212, classifier 214, data collection frequency engine 252, and driver detection engine 254. Not all of the functionality illustrated in FIG. 2 is utilized in some embodiments. Thus, the functions of these components can be executed by mobile device 101 in conjunction with memory 124. In other embodiments, these functions are performed by the components of server 201 illustrated in FIG. 2. Server 201 may also include data storage 256. Thus, it is important to note that, while not shown, one or more of the components shown operating within server 201 can operate fully or partially within mobile device 101, and vice versa.
And
[0050] In order to conserve battery and processing resources, a limited amount of data can be obtained and cached for use in conjunction with the various methods described herein. As an example, data in the vicinity of the driver's residence, workplace, or the like, for example, data related to traffic devices and traffic conditions within a radius of 5 miles could be downloaded to the driver's mobile device.
On claim 20, Madden cites except as underlined:
The system of claim 15, the instructions including instructions to: indicate, to the driver, a reminder of the corrective action consisting of a shortened, truncated, or alternative version of the indicated corrective action.
Madden discloses:
[0001] Mobile devices, including smartphones, have been utilized in vehicles to measure driving performance of drivers by collecting and processing data from the device's location sensor, accelerometer, gyroscope, and more. Typical factors measured include hard braking, rapid acceleration, hard cornering or turning, speeding, and phone distraction.
[0092] In block 702, the method includes determining an alert modality. As described more
fully below, the alert modalities can include, but are not limited to, one or more beeps, a voice prompt, a song selected by the user, a visual alert, vibration of the mobile device, and the like, and the alert characteristics can include, but are not limited to, alert volume, the alerting duration, the timing of the alert, and the like.
Madden doesn’t specifically disclose the above driver performance as being indicated by a voice prompt or a beep. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Madden, based on the disclosed embodiment above, the feature of truncating, shortening, or abbreviating a detected warning into a shortened version of the actual warning.
As disclosed above, a voice prompt may include at least a phrase or sentence telling the driver of a detected violation and a warning for the driver to slow down if the violation detected is speeding. Madden discloses the option of including audio warnings that include at least a “beep,” that is, a short audio signal to indicate to the driver a speeding instead of a phrase or sentence. One of ordinary skill would have included this feature to quickly warning the driver of a violation and a admonishment to correct the violation through an association of selected but abbreviated audio prompts without having to include a verbal warning, which is likely longer than a short “beep.”
Claims 5, 13, and 19 are unpatentable under 35 USC 103 over Madden et al., U.S. 2024/0017737 (see IDS) in view of Bullock, U.S. 8,554,468.
On claim 5, Madden cites except as underlined:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving an indication of a driving goal based on at least one deviant driving behavior;
[0046] The scoring process can include capturing the trips, determining which trips in which the user was the driver, scoring those trips, computing driver's driving behavior based on scores, and providing feedback to modify driver behavior and improving driver performance.
and
increasing a frequency of indicating the corrective action to the driver.
Regarding the excepted claim limitations, Madden disclosed an embodiment wherein driver improved performance is scored. However, Madden doesn’t disclose a frequency of indicating the corrective action to the driver.
In the same art of driver performance monitoring, Bullock discloses:
Col 9, lines 33-41 The system then provides a safe speed to the driver and a point at which the vehicle must begin braking for the next road segment. If actual speed is higher than RSS past a certain point where the distance required to decelerate is reached, a warning is issued to the driver. These might include RSS displays and/or audible warnings for example. If the driver fails to heed the alert, additional warnings will be issued with increasing frequency and/or volume until corrective action is taken.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify Madden’s driver scoring feature using Bullock’s driver correction feature feature where the driver, when continually refuses to respond to warnings, a system continually apprises the driver to correct his driving.
One of ordinary skill would have included this feature to encourage the driver to correct his driving behavior to prevent getting into an accident.
On claim 13, Madden cites except as underlined:
The medium of claim 9, the operations further comprising: receiving an indication of a driving goal based on at least one deviant driving behavior;
[0046] The scoring process can include capturing the trips, determining which trips in which the user was the driver, scoring those trips, computing driver's driving behavior based on scores, and providing feedback to modify driver behavior and improving driver performance.
and
increasing a frequency of indicating the corrective action to the driver.
Regarding the excepted claim limitations, Madden disclosed an embodiment wherein driver improved performance is scored. However, Madden doesn’t disclose a frequency of indicating the corrective action to the driver.
In the same art of driver performance monitoring, Bullock discloses:
Col 9, lines 33-41 The system then provides a safe speed to the driver and a point at which the vehicle must begin braking for the next road segment. If actual speed is higher than RSS past a certain point where the distance required to decelerate is reached, a warning is issued to the driver. These might include RSS displays and/or audible warnings for example. If the driver fails to heed the alert, additional warnings will be issued with increasing frequency and/or volume until corrective action is taken.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify Madden’s driver scoring feature using Bullock’s driver correction feature where the driver, when continually refuses to respond to warnings, a system continually apprises the driver to correct his driving.
One of ordinary skill would have included this feature to encourage the driver to correct his driving behavior to prevent getting into an accident.
On claim 19, Madden cites except as underlined:
The system of claim 15, the instructions including instructions to: receive an indication of a driving goal based on at least one deviant driving behavior;
[0046] The scoring process can include capturing the trips, determining which trips in which the user was the driver, scoring those trips, computing driver's driving behavior based on scores, and providing feedback to modify driver behavior and improving driver performance.
and increase a frequency of indicating the corrective action to the driver.
Regarding the excepted claim limitations, Madden disclosed an embodiment wherein driver improved performance is scored. However, Madden doesn’t disclose a frequency of indicating the corrective action to the driver.
In the same art of driver performance monitoring, Bullock discloses:
Col 9, lines 33-41 The system then provides a safe speed to the driver and a point at which the vehicle must begin braking for the next road segment. If actual speed is higher than RSS past a certain point where the distance required to decelerate is reached, a warning is issued to the driver. These might include RSS displays and/or audible warnings for example. If the driver fails to heed the alert, additional warnings will be issued with increasing frequency and/or volume until corrective action is taken.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify Madden’s driver scoring feature using Bullock’s driver correction feature where the driver, when continually refuses to respond to warnings, a system continually apprises the driver to correct his driving.
One of ordinary skill would have included this feature to encourage the driver to correct his driving behavior to prevent getting into an accident.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 claims:
“A method, comprising:
monitoring one or more driving characteristics by at least one first sensor of a vehicle; monitoring one or more environmental characteristics by at least one second sensor of the vehicle; determining, based on first data of the first sensor and second data of the second sensor, at least one deviant driving characteristic and an associated environmental characteristic; determining a deviant driving behavior based on the deviant driving characteristic and the associated environmental characteristic; and indicating, to a driver of the vehicle, a corrective action for correcting the deviant driving behavior.”
The applicant’s argument regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) has been carefully reviewed. The applicant’s argument asserts the rejection of claim 1 under Madden as being “fundamentally flawed mapping of Madden’s disclosure and a semantic interpretation of the term ‘speeding’” which the applicant’s rebuttal asserts as failing to address the address the actual technical limitations of the term.
The surrounds the Examiner’s alleged use of Madden and the “claimed conjunctive determination” not being satisfied to render claim 1 rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1).
According to the applicant’s argument, Madden fails to read upon the claimed:
“determining, based on first data of the first sensor and second data of the second sensor, at least one deviant driving characteristic and an associated environmental characteristic determining a deviant driving behavior based on the deviant driving characteristic and the associated environmental characteristic; and
indicating, to a driver of the vehicle, a corrective action for correcting the deviant driving behavior.”
While not specifically disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, figure 1 is an embodiment incorporating the features disclosed in Madden alongside figure 3 which discloses a flowchart describing the operation of the embodiment expressed in figure 1. Without regurgitating what was cited in the rejection of claim 1, Madden, at [0060, and 52-53] disclosed the claim limitations as the applicant outlined in the rebuttal. However, and simply put, the use of “conjunctive determination” doesn’t have any application here. The applicant’s argument, as observed by the examiner, is to assert there must close proximation or close cooperation of the cited elements in order to make a proper 102(a)(1) rejection. Per the applicant’s argument:
“There is no disclosure in Madden, either expressly or inherently, of determining a deviant driving behavior based on a deviant driving characteristic (e.g., speeding) and an associated environmental characteristic (e.g., entering a school zone). Underlining two unrelated, alternative items included in a disjunctive list, as is done on page 3 of the Office Action and reproduced below, does not satisfy the technical requirement of claim 1 for a conjunctive determination or the legal requirements of an anticipation rejection, which requires the elements to be arranged as in the claim.”
The applicant goes on further to state:
“The Examiner attempts to bridge the missing conjunctive determination in Madden that is described above by appealing to the understanding of one or ordinary skill in the art, citing a dictionary definition of "deviant" as "straying or deviating especially from an accepted norm." Office Action at 20. Based on this definition, the Examiner alleges that the "accepted norm" (e.g., the speed limit set by authorities) constitutes the claimed environmental characteristic. Office Action at 20 ("The environmental condition is that the authorities have set a threshold at which a vehicle may travel up to a certain speed."). This logic is technically and legally insufficient under the express language of the claim.”
It’s already been disclosed there are alerts related to “speeding” and Madden’s embodiment is about determining behavior that is detrimental to the driving conditions set forth in its citations. Clearly the sensors and the conditions measured by the sensors to produce an alarm are disclosed in Madden.
Furthermore, the applicant’s argument asserts the examiner’s use of the dictionary to defined the limitation “deviant driving behavior” as unsatisfactory in rejecting the limitations disclosed in claim 1. In addition to the examiner’s comments in the final office action regarding this issue, the examiner asserts there’s a reason why there are alerts related to “speeding” and “entering a school zone.” Any driver abrogating these sensor detected parameter limits invariably incur a corresponding alarm. This is even more apparent when the driver is speeding in a designated school zone. The examiner finds the applicant’s argument unpersuasive. For the same reasons indicated above, the rebuttal against the rejection of claims 9 and 15 are equally unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 6, claim 6 claims:
“The method of claim 1, further comprising: indicating, to the driver, a reminder of the corrective action consisting of a shortened, truncated, or alternative version of the indicated corrective action.”
The applicant asserts the rationale for rejecting claim 6 was improper.
Per the applicant’s rebuttal, “Here, the Examiner fails to provide any such motivation, instead relying on a rationale that is contrary to claim 6. Specifically, the Examiner alleges that a POSITA would have included a beep for "quickly warning the driver of a violation without having to include a verbal warning, which is likely longer than a short 'beep."
Per the examiner’s response, “As disclosed above, a voice prompt may include at least a phrase or sentence telling the driver of a detected violation and a warning for the driver to slow down if the violation detected is speeding. Madden discloses the option of including audio warnings that include at least a "beep," that is, a short audio signal to indicate to the driver a speeding instead of a phrase or sentence. One of ordinary skill would have included this feature to quickly warning the driver of a violation and a admonishment to correct the violation through an association of selected but abbreviated audio prompts without having to include a verbal warning, which is likely longer than a short "beep."”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In short, the applicant’s arguments are of no merit, the rebuttal is merely asserting “I do not agree with you, therefore, your argument has no basis in logic or fact.” The examiner is allowed to take the place of one of ordinary skill in the art to make a reasonable observation. An alarm clock need not verbalize the terms “wake up!” The beeps or other pulsing alarm sounds are sufficient to apprise a sleeper to awaken at a given time.
The applicant asserts the rejection of claim 6 was improper. The applicant asserts this claim is a “two-staged process” because the claim requires “indicating, to the driver, a reminder of the corrective action…a corrective action for deviant driving behavior.” The examiner finds this response somewhat “strained,” that is, if a driver induces actions leading to alerts being issued, and doesn’t do anything to correct the action which causes the alerts being issued, the alert presumably continues until the driver corrects his action. This is an inherent action: if a condition that causes an alert no longer exists, the alert will obviously cease. To use the previous example of the sleeper and the alarm clock, if the sleeper doesn’t awake to either shut off the alarm or press the “snooze button,” the alarm to awaken will continue to sound.
The above responses to the rejection of claim 6 also apply to similar claims 14 and 20.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 5 has been carefully reviewed. The examiner agrees with the applicant’s arguments. Accordingly, prosecution is reopened and a corresponding amended non-final office action is rendered. For the same reason the rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn, the rejection of claims 13 and 19 are also withdrawn and an amended rejection of claims 13, and 19 are also provided.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAL EUSTAQUIO whose telephone number is (571)270-7229. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Zimmerman, can be reached at (571) 272-3059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application lnformation Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAlR only. For more information about the PAlR system, see http:/lpair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAlR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-91 99 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAL J EUSTAQUIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2686
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686