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. Priority date: 5 December 2024. Assig: Nissan North America Inc. No amendments were made in the response. The response includes only arguments.
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.
Remarks
Because the applicant’s current rebuttal submitted 17 July 2026 comprises of arguments to the examiner’s response to arguments indicated in the prior Office Action, the examiner’s response from the 18 March 2026 Office Action is included below for reference.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claim 1 have been carefully considered. Under the applicant’s arguments, section “1. The Examiner Introduces New Citations in the Response to Arguments Without Analysis,” the applicant argues (page 8, first paragraph):
“A rejection must specifically identify where each claimed limitation is found in the prior art reference. MPEP §§ 2131, 707.07(f). The Examiner's mere citation to figure numbers in the Response to Arguments, without any explanation of what those figures disclose or how they map to the specific claim limitations at issue, does not satisfy that requirement and cannot substitute for a properly articulated rejection. If FIG. 1 and FIG. 3 are material to the rejection of claim 1, they should appear in the rejection itself with a specific explanation of what they disclose and how each cited portion maps to each claim limitation. They do not. The Response to Arguments is not the rejection, and analysis appearing for the first time in the Response to Arguments-particularly analysis that is itself conclusory and devoid of claim mapping-does not establish a
prima facie case of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).”
According to the applicant’s arguments, because the examiner failed to include figures 1 and 3 as provided in the examiner’s response regarding the rejection of claim 1, the failure to include these citations in the rejection is insufficient to establish a 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection.
MPEP 2103 states:
C. Review the Claims
“The claims define the property rights provided by a patent, and thus require careful scrutiny. The goal of claim analysis is to identify the boundaries of the protection sought by the applicant and to understand how the claims relate to and define what the applicant has indicated is the invention. Examiners must first determine the scope of a claim by thoroughly analyzing the language of the claim before determining if the claim complies with each statutory requirement for patentability. See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("[T]he name of the game is the claim."). [AltContent: rect]
Examiners should begin claim analysis by identifying and evaluating each claim limitation. For processes, the claim limitations will define steps or acts to be performed. For products, the claim limitations will define discrete physical structures or materials. Product claims are claims that are directed to either machines, manufactures or compositions of matter.
Examiners should then correlate each claim limitation to all portions of the disclosure that describe the claim limitation. This is to be done in all cases, regardless of whether the claimed invention is defined using means- (or step-) plus- function language. The correlation step will ensure that examiners correctly interpret each claim limitation in light of the specification.”
The examiner’s responsibility, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), and as cited under MPEP 2103, is to map citations found in the reference to synonymous limitations of the claim. If the mapping of the citations to the limitations is self-explanatory, there is no further need to provide any rationale for the rejection. The applicant’s rebuttal, instead, focuses on the merits of the examiner’s response, and not the rejection of claim 1. The applicant has previously rebutted the rejection of claim 1 but hasn’t made the case for reversal. Furthermore, if the rejection requires a meaningful explanation for the rejection, the applicant’s rebuttal should argue for the explanation. As indicated below and from the previous examiner’s response, this has been done.
“2. The Examiner's "Speeding in a School Zone" Synthesis Is an Obviousness Analysis, Not Anticipation”
“The Examiner's Response to Arguments states: 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." Office Action at 21.
This argument is legally and factually insufficient for anticipation. Madden's [0061] recites a disjunctive list of independent alert triggers, among which "speeding" and "entering a school zone" appear as separate, alternative conditions.”
The applicant’s rebuttal applies to the following claim 1 limitations and the citations disclosed in Madden which are mapped to those limitations:
“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.”
Again, as was discussed under item 9 above, in order to effect a 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection, there has to be a one-to-one correlation between the claim limitations and relevant citations of the prior art. Clearly, “alerts related to speeding, hard acceleration, hard braking,” are sufficient to satisfy the claimed first and sensor data since at least alerts are generated from a sensing means measuring thresholds related to speeding, hard acceleration, and hard braking. The claimed “deviant behavior“ would also be the cited “speeding” found in Madden. “Entering a school zone,” with those other factors disclosed in Madden, and as underlined by the examiner doesn’t impeach the evidence presented in the rejection. The applicant’s argument focuses on the allegation that if the citation of “entering into a school zone” isn’t deviant behavior, then an obviousness rejection must follow. If the obviousness rejection must follow, then the rejection of claim 1 using Madden’s citations as an anticipation instead of an obviousness rejection disqualifies claim 1’s anticipation rejection. However, none of what the applicant’s argument alleges is seen here. The examiner’s argument remains and the applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. “3. The Examiner Mischaracterizes Applicant's Conjunctive Determination Argument.”
This applicant’s argument asserts:
“The Examiner recharacterizes Applicant's argument as asserting that "there must be close proximation or close cooperation of the cited elements in order to make a proper 102(a)(1) rejection." Office Action at 20. Applicant never argued proximity. Applicant's argument is straightforward: anticipation requires each claim element to be present and arranged as in the claim in a single prior art reference.
The Examiner further dismisses the concept of "conjunctive determination" as having "no application here," characterizing it as a requirement for "close proximation or close cooperation of the cited elements." Office Action at 20. This characterization is incorrect, and because the Examiner responds to the wrong argument, the actual argument is left entirely unanswered. Applicant's conjunctive determination argument is not about proximity. It is about claim structure. The claim requires both a deviant driving characteristic and an associated environmental characteristic as combined inputs to the deviant driving behavior determination- that is what the claim says, and that is what anticipation requires Madden to disclose. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. V. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). By recasting the argument as one about proximity, the Examiner avoids engaging with the actual structural requirement of the claim, and the Examiner's response therefore provides no basis for maintaining the rejection.
Claim 1 requires five steps that can be characterized by a specific three-stage process:
A. Monitoring a driving characteristic via a first sensor and monitoring an environmental characteristic via a second sensor;
B. Determining, from both sensor inputs, a deviant driving characteristic and an associated environmental characteristic; and
C. Determining a deviant driving behavior based on that established pairing-a higher-order determination qualitatively different from either input alone.
Madden never gets past step A. Madden monitors conditions and generates independent alerts for each. Madden has no disclosed mechanism for steps B or C-no process by which the two sensor inputs are combined to first establish an association between a driving characteristic and an environmental characteristic, and then use that established association to make a higher- order determination of deviant driving behavior.”
Regarding the applicant’s argument, Madden never gets past step A. Madden monitors conditions and generates independent alerts for each. Madden has no disclosed mechanism for steps B or C-no process by which the two sensor inputs are combined to first establish an association between a driving characteristic and an environmental characteristic, and then use that established association to make a higher- order determination of deviant driving behavior, the rejection of claim 1 with associated recitations of Madden include:
“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.”
Accordingly, Madden clearly cites: “monitoring one or more environmental characteristics by at least one second sensor of the vehicle” as the cited “location” is at least one monitored environmental condition. The claimed limitations fall within the decision disclosed in SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004), wherein the Federal Circuit held that the plain meaning of “at least one of A, B, and C” means: at least one A, at least one of B and at least one of C. The Court held that if the applicant intended “at least one of A, B, and C” to mean A, B or C, they should have used “OR.” Furthermore, the applicant’s specification is clearly in line with the claim limitations. The applicant’s specification cites:
“[0055] The vehicle hardware components 4002 further comprise one or more environmental-characteristics sensors 4042 that monitor environmental characteristics internal to the vehicle (e.g., inside a cabin of the vehicle) and/or external to the vehicle (e.g., outside the cabin), including one or more internal cameras 4018, one or more external cameras 4020, and lidar or radar 4022.”
Furthermore, the applicant’s arguments regarding steps B and C do not comport with the actual claim limitations as well as the citations used to reject these steps:
“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 (as well as the other underlined parts of Madden).
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.”
4. The Examiner's Dictionary-Based Theory Does Not Supply the Missing Conjunctive Determination
The relevant parts of the applicant’s rebuttal include:
“First, the claim requires "monitoring one or more environmental characteristics by at least one second sensor of the vehicle." Accepted norms and authority-set thresholds are abstract concepts; they are not physical attributes of the environment capable of being monitored by a sensor of a vehicle. Sensors detect physical parameters, such as velocity or location, not abstract concepts like accepted norms or authority-set thresholds. The Examiner's dictionary argument equates the claimed environmental characteristic with the speed limit set by authorities-an abstract regulatory concept-rather than with a physical attribute of the environment such as a speed limit sign detected by a camera sensor or a school zone boundary detected by a GPS sensor. The dictionary definition of "deviant" does not transform an abstract regulatory norm into a sensor-detectable environmental characteristic, and it does not identify any second sensor in Madden monitoring any physical manifestation of such a norm.”
As discussed in item 11, it is clear Madden anticipates the underlined claim limitations. On that observation alone, the examiner disagrees with the applicant’s argument.
“Second, even accepting at face value the Examiner's characterization on pages 20-21 of the Office Action that "Madden's embodiment is about determining behavior that is detrimental to the driving conditions set forth in its citations," neither that characterization nor the Examiner's observation on page 21 of the Office Action that "[c]learly the sensors and the conditions measured by the sensors to produce an alarm are disclosed in Madden" supplies the conjunctive determination missing from Madden. The issue is not whether Madden's sensors detect conditions or whether those conditions produce alarms. The issue is whether Madden discloses a process by which a sensor-detected driving characteristic and a sensor-detected environmental characteristic are combined as inputs to produce a higher-order determination of deviant driving behavior. Neither the dictionary argument nor its supporting characterizations address that process.”
It is believed the applicant’s referral to a “conjunctive determination” refers to the interpretation of claim language where the connecting term (often “and”) is read to require all listed elements to be present for the claim to be met.
The claim limitations claim:
"monitoring one or more environmental characteristics by at least one second sensor of the vehicle."
Under item 11, the examiner referred to the Superguide case, wherein the claim alternative embodiment using the article “or” means at least only one of the limitations examined must be present. The applicant cannot argue “conjunctive determination” if the claim limitations, specification, and case law do not support that argument. For this reason, the applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
5. The Examiner Collapses the Entire Claim Into the "Indicating" Limitation
The applicant’s argument includes:
“The Examiner's reasoning on pages 20-21 that Madden has sensors, those sensors measure conditions, those conditions produce alarms, and therefore claim 1 is anticipated collapses the entire claim into the final "indicating" limitation and reasons backward from the existence of an alert output to the conclusion that everything upstream must also be present. That is not how anticipation works. Claim 1 has five distinct operative steps:
A. Monitoring driving characteristics by a first sensor;
B. Monitoring environmental characteristics by a second sensor;
C. Determining a deviant driving characteristic and an associated environmental
characteristic from the respective sensor data;
D. Determining a deviant driving behavior based on both; and
E. Indicating a corrective action.
The Examiner has not identified a disclosure in Madden that satisfies steps C and D. The observation that Madden produces sensor-triggered alarms addresses only step E and says nothing about whether steps C and D are present. Reasoning backward from the existence of an alarm output to the conclusion that everything upstream must be present is not anticipation, and reading steps C and D out of the claim entirely renders those limitations meaningless. For at least the foregoing reasons, the anticipation rejection of claim 1 should be withdrawn, as well as counterpart claims 9 and 15, and dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, and 17.”
Claim 1’s rejection includes:
“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.”
As previously mentioned by the applicant and defined by examiner,
"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.")”
The examiner stands by the definition of “deviant.” If one is clearly speeding above the posted speed limit, speeding is out of the norm as described above. Furthermore, the follow on action disclosed in Madden, [0057] is sufficient to meet the claimed “indicating, to a driver of the vehicle, a corrective action for correcting the deviant driving behavior” wherein Madden’s embodiment is admonishing the driver to “take correction actions beforehand” based on data received at the processing block 120 and GPS data. The applicant’s argument rests on hyperbole and the applicant’s rebuttal is also not persuasive.
5. The Examiner Collapses the Entire Claim Into the "Indicating" Limitation
The applicant’s argument includes:
“The Examiner's reasoning on pages 20-21 that Madden has sensors, those sensors measure conditions, those conditions produce alarms, and therefore claim 1 is anticipated collapses the entire claim into the final "indicating" limitation and reasons backward from the existence of an alert output to the conclusion that everything upstream must also be present. That is not how anticipation works. Claim 1 has five distinct operative steps: A. Monitoring driving characteristics by a first sensor; B. Monitoring environmental characteristics by a second sensor; C. Determining a deviant driving characteristic and an associated environmental characteristic from the respective sensor data; D. Determining a deviant driving behavior based on both; and E. Indicating a corrective action.
The Examiner has not identified a disclosure in Madden that satisfies steps C and D. The observation that Madden produces sensor-triggered alarms addresses only step E and says nothing about whether steps C and D are present. Reasoning backward from the existence of an alarm output to the conclusion that everything upstream must be present is not anticipation, and reading steps C and D out of the claim entirely renders those limitations meaningless.”
Claim 1’s rejections include:
“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.”
First, the applicant’s citation of the claim limitations in question is not correct. “C. Determining a deviant driving characteristic and an associated environmental characteristic from the respective sensor data; D. Determining a deviant driving behavior based on both” is not the same as the examined claim limitations. Since the applicant’s argument doesn’t present a word-for-word claim citation and therefore, an incorrect restatement of the claims, the applicant’s argument is therefore without merit. The applicant needs to argue each and every limitation with precision and this is not the case here.
The Examiner's "No Merit" Characterization Violates the Examiner's Obligation Under MPEP § 707.07(f) to Specifically Address Each Argument
This is the unamended rejection of 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.””
The applicant’s argument asserts:
“The Examiner states on page 22 of the Office Action that "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." Office Action at 22. This characterization is incorrect and itself fails to meet the Examiner's obligation to respond to Applicant's arguments. MPEP § 707.07(f) requires the Examiner to specifically address each argument raised by Applicant and provide a reasoned response. A bare declaration that arguments are without merit, without engaging with their substance, does not satisfy that obligation.”
The applicant’s original argument, as found in the 26 February 2026, page 5 and 6 response, states:
“1. Claims 6, 14, and 20
Applicant respectfully maintains the arguments provided in the response to the previous Office Action regarding the "two-stage" sequence of a detailed indication followed by a condensed reminder, and Applicant incorporates those arguments herein. Accordingly, the following remarks primarily concern the Examiner's Response to Arguments.
a. Lack of a Reasoned Explanation to Modify
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness based on a single reference, the Examiner must provide a reasoned explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to modify that reference to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Kotzab, 205 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 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." Office Action at 21.
This rationale does not motivate modifying Madden to include the sequential functional relationship of claim 6-first indicating a relatively longer corrective action (claim 1) and then subsequently indicating a relatively shorter reminder thereof (claim 6). Rather, it suggests skipping the longer indication entirely in favor of an immediate, shorter alert. Even if one were to concede that a "beep" is a possible version of some arbitrary corrective action, nothing in Madden teaches, suggests, or motivates the claimed sequence of providing a reminder that is a derivative of a specific, previously indicated corrective action.
b. Mischaracterization of the Two Stage Process
The Examiner's assertion on page 22 of the Office Action that "the claim does not disclose a 'two-stage process,' as the applicant's rebuttal asserts" ignores the plain language of the claim. Claim 6 recites "indicating, to the driver, a reminder of the corrective action consisting of a shortened, truncated, or alternative version of the indicated corrective action" (emphasis added), wherein the indicated action refers back to the last step of claim 1 that recites "indicating, to a driver of the vehicle, a corrective action for correcting the deviant driving behavior" (emphasis added).
Claim 1 establishes proper antecedent basis for "the indicated corrective action," thereby requiring the two-stage process. A dependent claim incorporates every limitation of the claim from which it depends. 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) ("A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers."); see also MPEP § 608.01(n) ("A dependent claim.. must be considered to include every limitation of the claim from which it depends.").
Because claim 6 incorporates the indication step of claim 1 and then adds a second, derivative "reminder" step based on that first step, claim 6 is clearly constructed as a two-stage process contrary to the Examiner's misunderstanding. See Office Action at 22 ("Unless the claim is clearly constructed as a 'two-stage process,' the applicant's argument cannot state this is in the claim unless it is clearly stated."). Additionally, the term "reminder" is, by definition, a relational and temporal concept: one cannot be reminded of a corrective action unless that specific action was previously indicated.
Finally, the Examiner's arguments on page 22 of the Office Action that "if one of ordinary skill were to surmise a 'two stage process' is occurring, one would surmise an act is occurring to cause an alarm to sound, followed by the driver's recall of knowledge on the violation that the driver needs to respond to the alarm." This highlights the Examiner's misunderstanding of the two-stage process as that of: (1) cause an alarm to sound; then (2) driver's recall of knowledge of the violation, when in fact, the claimed two-stage process requires the system to: (1) indicate a corrective action; and then (2) indicate a reminder of that previously indicated corrective action.”
The examiner’s previous response to the applicant’s argument regarding the rejection of claim 6, as requoted from the 18 March 2026 Office Action, states:
“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 examiner has carefully reviewed the applicant’s arguments as underlined above. The applicant’s argument that:
“The Examiner states on page 22 of the Office Action that "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." Office Action at 22. This characterization is incorrect and itself fails to meet the Examiner's obligation to respond to Applicant's arguments. MPEP § 707.07(f) requires the Examiner to specifically address each argument raised by Applicant and provide a reasoned response. A bare declaration that arguments are without merit, without engaging with their substance, does not satisfy that obligation.”
First off, this is a dishonest and out-of-context allegation, which the applicant accuses the examiner of not doing his due diligence.
“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."
The rejection of claim 6 rests on the following:
“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.”” (emphasis added).
MPEP 2102 sets the standard for an obviousness rejection:
The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Federal Circuit has stated that "rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained with mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (quoting Federal Circuit's statement in Kahn with approval). [AltContent: rect]
Thus, the examiner emphatically repeats the response this accusation:
“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 examiner stands by the prior assertion where the applicant’s argument is merely complaining the examiner’s rationale and motivations are without merit without citing any specific patent law, doctrine, or rationale. The examiner isn’t persuaded by these arguments.
2. The Examiner's Alarm Clock Analogy Undermines the Rejection
The applicant’s argument asserts:
“The Examiner offers an alarm clock analogy on pages 22-23 of the Office Action, stating that "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." Office Action at 23. This analogy does not support the rejection-it refutes it.”
The applicant’s argument, again, mistakenly misrepresents the examiner’s example, which is shown here from the 18 March 2026 Office Action:
“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.”
In other words, the “truncated aspect” of what claim 6 was asking is the example of an alarm clock making an alarm instead of verbalizing the words “wake up.”
1. The Examiner's Substitution of Bullock for Nakayama Does Not Cure the Fundamental Deficiency of the Rejection; and, 2. Madden Does Not Disclose "Receiving an Indication of a Driving Goal Based on at Least One Deviant Driving Behavior"
These argument surrounds the rejection of claim 5, which as amended in the prior Office Action:
Claim 5 is 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.”
The applicant’s argument states:
“The Examiner conceded the prior rejection of claims 5, 13, and 19 over Madden in view of Nakayama and reopened prosecution with a new rejection over Madden in view of Bullock. Applicant acknowledges this concession. However, the substitution of Bullock for Nakayama does not cure the fundamental deficiency of the rejection that Applicant identified in the previous Office Action response-namely, that Madden does not disclose or suggest "receiving an indication of a driving goal based on at least one deviant driving behavior." That limitation was mapped exclusively to Madden in the prior rejection, it is mapped exclusively to Madden in the current rejection, and Madden's disclosure has not changed. Bullock is cited only for the "increasing a frequency" limitation. The driving goal limitation therefore remains entirely unsupported. MPEP § 707.07(f) requires the Examiner to specifically address each argument raised by Applicant and provide a reasoned response. Applicant raised the driving goal argument in the previous Office Action response. The Examiner's response was to switch secondary references without addressing the driving goal argument at all. That is not a response to the argument-it is an avoidance of it. Forcing Applicant to respond to a new combination while leaving the fundamental deficiency of the rejection unaddressed wastes Applicant's time and resources and does not advance prosecution. A subsequent Office Action maintaining this rejection should not be made final until the Examiner has substantively addressed the driving goal limitation gap. MPEP § 706.07(a).”
The examiner reviewed the applicant’s argument and finds the rebuttal meritless. The claimed “receiving an indication of a driving goal based on at least one deviant driving behavior” was met under Madden:
[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.
Deviant driving behavior, was identified in Madden, claim 1, as:
[0060] velocity of the car
[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
However, as indicated in the applicant’s rebuttal,
“Applicant identified in the previous Office Action response-namely, that Madden does not disclose or suggest "receiving an indication of a driving goal based on at least one deviant driving behavior." That limitation was mapped exclusively to Madden in the prior rejection, it is mapped exclusively to Madden in the current rejection, and Madden's disclosure has not changed. Bullock is cited only for the "increasing a frequency" limitation. The driving goal limitation therefore remains entirely unsupported.
As indicated in Madden’s citations, the applicant’s arguments are without merit as Madden clearly meets the claim limitations which the applicant alleges are not present in Madden. Furthermore, the applicant’s argument that “the driving goal limitation remains entirely unsupported” is also specious. In addition to what Madden cites:
[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.
Bullock also disclosed:
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.
The citations and rationale to combine Madden and Bullock clearly refute the applicant’s argument. For this reason, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Response to Arguments cited from 18 March 2026 Office Action
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
Because the rebuttal has failed to successfully refute the claim rejections, the case for allowability is also unwarranted. Should the applicant find the examination of this application unsatisfactory, the applicant is free to seek a second opinion at the Patent and Trademark Appeals Board (PTAB). 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 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
Prosecution Insights