Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant filed an amendment on 2/17/26. claims 1-10 and 19-28 will be pending in this application. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 19, 21, and 26-28 have been amended, claims 11-18 were previously canceled,
Claim 28 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Here after careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. (aside from any other rejections that are not based on the art) Claim 28 depends on claim 27 and in combination appears to be able to determine the side of entry (right side and left side) and a details the inventive concept more clearly than claim 27 for example.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim Claims 1-10 and 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here claim 1 method, claim 19 system and claim 21 non-transitory computer readable medium are directed to statutory classes of invention. (yes)
In regards to the claims themselves, claim 1 is being analyzed as the exemplary claim.
Claims 1,19 and 21 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These are certain methods of organizing human activity which is a fundamental economic practice.
Under the Broadest reasonable interpretation the claims are directed to tracking driver behavior to computer insurance risk which is a fundamental economic practice.
The abstract limitations of claim 1 include;
measuring, by an a … disposed in a vehicle during a drive, acceleration forces applied to the … with respect to a reference frame of the …, the … configured to transmit electronic signals to a … indicating the acceleration forces applied to … during the drive; receiving, by the processor of …, the electronic signals from the … indicating the acceleration forces; analyzing, by the processor, the acceleration forces measured by the … to classify the acceleration forces into a first set of accelerations caused by a user of … and a second set of accelerations caused by motion of the vehicle; detecting, by the …, one or more braking events and one or more forward acceleration events based on the second set of accelerations; analyzing, by …, a subset of the second set of accelerations that are associated with a first event of the one or more braking events or the one or more forward acceleration events to determine a direction of the first event with respect to the reference frame of …; analyzing, by … , signs of the acceleration forces along a same axis the one or more braking events and the one or more forward acceleration events to determine a direction of the first event with respect to a reference frame of the vehicle; and transforming, …, the acceleration forces measured with respect to the reference frame of … to be aligned with respect to the reference frame of the vehicle using the direction of the first event with respect to the reference frame of the … and the direction of the first event with respect to the reference frame of the vehicle.
Here the technical elements are essentially the mobile phone. The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitation as a certain method of organizing human activity which is a fundamental economic practice. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The recitation of generic computing elements (cell phone) in a claim does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 19 and 21 are similar to claim 1. Under Step 2a prong 1, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements. “mobile phone” and processor. (none in addition to mobile phone and processor). The hardware/software are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly these additional elements when considered separately or as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality.
Step 2A prong 2, No additional elements are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and as an ordered combination they do not add significantly more also known as inventive concept. The use of a cell phone (generic computing element) in the context of “apply it” cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 2-10 and 20,22-26,28 are rejected because they depend on claims 1, 11 or 27 respectively.
Applicant invention is directed to determining a position of the user for the purposes of monitoring driving. However, the outcome of the invention does not result in any action or report or result such that it would distinguish over the idea itself. Applicant by amendment ties the invention to a mobile phone. Ideally the vehicle would be tied in or an improvement of the technology itself could be highlighted. Some action, or report would be desirable rather than just analyzing data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, 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 negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 and 19-27 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent to Abramson 8290480 in view of Tamari 20130096731 (0032)
As per claim 1, Abramson discloses; measuring, by an accelerometer of a mobile phone disposed in a vehicle during a drive, Abramson (col. 2 lines 5-10) acceleration forces applied to the mobile phone with respect to a reference frame of the mobile phone, Abramson (col. 14 lines 55-end, acceleration in the X Y and Z axis, it’s applied to a phone see col./ 15 lines 15-20) the accelerometer configured to transmit electronic signals to a processor of the mobile phone indicating the acceleration forces applied to the mobile phone during the drive; Abramson (col. 19, lines 50-end they are measuring the forces applied to a car by way of the mobile device) receiving, by the processor of the mobile phone, the electronic signals from the accelerometer indicating the acceleration forces; Abramson(col. 47 by way of illustration…. Acceleration being measured) analyzing, by the processor of the mobile phone, the acceleration forces measured by the accelerometer to … acceleration forces into a first set of accelerations caused by a user of the mobile phone and a second set of accelerations caused by motion of the vehicle; Abramson (col. 58 lines 30-45 for example the system uses various inputs to determine if the acceleration is that of the vehicle for example. See also table 1 where the system can determine the type of vehicle)
detecting, by the processor of the mobile phone, one or more braking events and one or more forward acceleration events Abramson col. 52, acceleration and deceleration which is braking, col. 56 literally braking, one or more could be just one) based on the second set of accelerations; analyzing, by the processor of the mobile phone, a subset of the second set of accelerations that are associated with a first event of the one or more braking events or the one or more forward acceleration events to determine a direction of the first event with respect to the reference frame of the mobile phone;
Abramson col. 52, acceleration and deceleration which is braking, col. 56 literally braking, one or more could be just one) the one or more braking events and the one or more forward acceleration events to determine a direction of the first event with respect to a reference frame of the vehicle;
and transforming, by the processor of the mobile phone , the acceleration forces measured with respect to the reference frame of the mobile phone to be aligned with respect to the reference frame of the vehicle using the direction of the first event with respect to the reference frame of the mobile phone and the direction of the first event with respect to the reference frame of the vehicle.
Abramson (col. 49 the system can measure the mobile device and changes relative to the vehicle, in the words of Abramson “unrelated”) Abramson does not explicitly used the term
classify the (activity), in other words, a classification feature. However, col. 48 bottom through col. 49 top indicates that the program like any cannot fully be certain but, can classify (line 50) and make determinations related to if the user of the device is the driver or passenger (col. 49 1-15).
Therefore it would be obvious to interpret Abramson such that making a determination of driver vs. passenger by various methods including looking at acceleration and activity for the motivation “reducing driver accident risk” (col 1, lines 35-45) Abramson does not explicitly disclose what Tamari teaches; analyzing, by the processor, of the mobile phone signs of the acceleration forces along a same axis (0032)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosure of Abramson with the teachings of Tamari for the motivation of better “measuring drive event detection and risk” (0001)
Claims 19 and 21 are similar to claim 1.
As per claims 2, 22 Abramson discloses;
The method of claim 1, wherein detecting the one or more braking events and the one or more forward acceleration events comprises:
partitioning, by the processor of the mobile phone, the second set of accelerations into a plurality of time windows; extracting , by the processor of the mobile phone, values from the accelerations in each time window of the plurality of time windows for one or more parameters that correspond to one or more characteristics of braking or forward acceleration; and inputting, by the processor, of the mobile phone the values from each time window of the plurality of time windows into a machine learning model to classify each time window as corresponding to a braking event, a forward acceleration event, or neither. (Col. 53 time windows of relevancy and col. 48 supervised learning algorithm, lines 45-55)
As per claims 3, 23 Abramson discloses; The method of claim 2, wherein the one or more parameters comprise at least one of: a magnitude of acceleration projected onto an x-y plane having a normal aligned with acceleration due to gravity, a standard deviation, a mean, kurtosis, skew, a maximum value, a minimum value, wavelet coefficients, FFT coefficients, or features calculated using unsupervised feature selection methods including at least one of Sparse Auto-Encoders or Restricted Boltzmann Machines. (col. 50 lines 35-50 magnitude, it is noted that this claim only requires one of the choice of…… not all, standard deviation, col 54)
As per claim 4, Abramson discloses;
The method of claim 1, wherein detecting the one or more braking events and the one or more forward acceleration events comprises: determining, by the processor of the mobile phone, that a magnitude of acceleration for one or more of the second set of accelerations measured by the accelerometer exceed a predefined threshold acceleration magnitude.
Col. 52 acceleration magnitude, in col. 51, thresholds can be chosen for various parameters)
As per claims 5, 25, Abramson discloses;
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the direction of the first event with respect to the reference frame of the mobile phone comprises: rotating, by the processor of the mobile phone , the subset of the second set of accelerations within an x-y plane around a normal aligned with acceleration due to gravity at a plurality of angles between 0 degrees and 360 degrees in predetermined increments; determining, by the processor of the mobile phone , and for each angle of the plurality of angles, a value of the subset of the second set of accelerations along at least one of the x or y axes, thereby producing a plurality of values corresponding to each angle of the plurality of angles; comparing, by the processor of the mobile phone , the plurality of values to determine an angle of the plurality of angles having the maximum value of the plurality of values; and defining, by the processor, of the mobile phone the direction of the first event with respect to the reference frame of the mobile phone as the angle. Col. 46 lines 20-30 measuring gravitational forces….. and col. 59 for directional angles see also col. 51 where turn angles can be determined…. Lines 40-50)
As per claims 6, 26, Abramson discloses; The method of claim 1, wherein the direction of the first event with respect to the reference frame of the vehicle is forward or backward, and transforming the acceleration forces to be aligned with the reference frame of the vehicle comprises: determining, by the processor of the mobile phone , an angular difference between a y axis of the mobile phone and the direction of the first event with respect to the reference frame of the mobile phone; rotating, by the processor of the mobile phone, the acceleration forces within an x-y plane around a normal aligned with acceleration due to gravity by the angular difference; and changing, by the processor of the mobile phone , the sign of the acceleration forces based on whether the direction of the first event with respect to the reference frame of the vehicle is forward or backward. Abramson(col. 58 lines 20-30, forward and reverse instead of backward, it’s noted that “or” is a choice so only one side is required, see col. 465 for gravitational force lines 20-30)
As per claims 7, 20, 27, Abramson discloses;
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the processor, a timestamp of a first event that occurred before or after the one or more braking events and the one or more forward acceleration events; extracting, by the processor of the mobile phone , a portion of the transformed acceleration forces from within a window of time around the timestamp; determining, by the processor of the mobile phone , and from the portion of the transformed acceleration forces, whether the first event is an entry event in which the mobile phone enters the vehicle before the one or more braking events and the one or more forward acceleration events or an exit event in which the mobile phone exits the vehicle after the one or more braking events and the one or more forward acceleration events; determining, by the processor of the mobile phone , a first component of the portion of the transformed acceleration forces along a first axis ;determining, by the processor of the mobile phone , a second component of the portion of the transformed acceleration forces along a second axis, wherein the second axis is orthogonal to the first axis; determining, by the processor of the mobile phone, whether the first event occurs on a left side or on a right side of the vehicle based on whether the first event is an entry event or an exit event, the first component, and the second component, to obtain a first determination result; determining, by the processor of the mobile phone , whether the mobile phone is on a front side or on a rear side of the vehicle from the second set of accelerations to obtain a second determination result ;and determining, by the processor of the mobile phone , a position of the mobile phone in the vehicle during at least a portion of the drive based on the first determination result and the second determination result.
Abramson(col. 52 lines 20-35, can determine the sides and the vehicle front/back location of the mobile device based on various inputs such as acceleration and braking, it’s noted that “or”, may broaden this claim because each side of the or is a choice)
As per claim 8 Abramson discloses; The method of claim 7, wherein the first event is determined to occur on the left side or on the right side of the vehicle based on whether the first component and the second component have a same sign or different signs. Abramson (Col. 52 lines 30-35 positive or negative signs, but It’s a choice of one required not both)
As per claim 9 Abramson discloses; The method of claim 7, wherein determining whether the first event is the entry event or the exit event comprises: analyzing, by the processor of the mobile phone , the acceleration forces measured by the accelerometer to classify a first portion of the acceleration forces as corresponding to a walking state; analyzing, by the processor of the mobile phone , the acceleration forces measured by the accelerometer to classify a second portion of the acceleration forces as corresponding to a driving state; and determining, by the processor of the mobile phone , whether the first portion precedes the second portion, wherein the first event is determined to be the entry event if the first portion precedes the second portion and the first event is determined to be the exit event if the second portion precedes the second portion.
Abramson (col. 61 and 62, the system can determine between cars and busses, planes and trains and the side of the vehicle, thus it can also determine if the user is not in the vehicle for example by virtue of the technology, the system can classify the driver as in walking state because they are not in a car, bus or plane etc. Abramson can determine the same see table 1)
As per claim 10 Abramson discloses; The method of claim 7, wherein determining the timestamp of the first event and the window of time comprises:
measuring, by a gyroscope of the mobile phone, rotational forces applied to the mobile phone with respect to the reference frame of the mobile phone, the gyroscope configured to transmit electronic signals to the processor of the mobile phone indicating the rotational forces applied to the mobile phone; receiving, by the processor of the mobile phone, the electronic signals from the gyroscope indicating the rotational forces; analyzing, by the processor, the rotational forces to detect changes in a yaw angle that exceed a threshold; and determining the timestamp and the window of time based on when the changes in the yaw angle occurred.
Abramson (col.14 lines 60-end, gyroscopic yaw angle, see remainder of the col. For the device)
11. - 18. (Canceled).
Response to Arguments
Applicant filed an amendment on 2/17/26. claims 1-10 and 19-28 will be pending in this application. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 19, 21, and 26-28 have been amended, claims 11-18 were previously canceled,
Claim 28 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Here after careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
Applicant thanks the Examiner for the early indication of allowable subject matter and respectfully submits that claim 28 is patentable. It is noted the examiner is open to other options than claim 28 and had contacted the applicant attorney prior to first action to discuss at least the claim 28 option.
Claim Objections – withdrawn in view of amendment.
Claim Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claims 1-10 and 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims, at least as amended, are not directed to a judicial exception and requests reconsideration and allowance.
As noted in §2106.04 of the MPEP, evaluating claims under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test to determine whether claims are directed toward a judicial exception involves a two-prong approach. Prong One involves determining whether claims recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea. If the claims do not recite a judicial exception, then they are not directed to a judicial exception and are found to be patent eligible, thus concluding the analysis. If the claims do recite a judicial exception, the evaluation moves to Prong Two, in which:
if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the
exception, then the claim is eligible at Prong Two of revised Step 2A. This concludes
the eligibility analysis.
If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical
application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires
further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an
"inventive concept").
In view of these guidelines, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not recite a judicial exception and are therefore patent eligible at Prong One of Step 2A. Further, Applicant submits that even assuming arguendo that the claims recite a judicial exception, they are not directed to the judicial exception because the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
As explained in §2106.04(d) of the MPEP, a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, and thus imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception when the claim reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to another technology or technical field.
The present application is generally directed to determining whether a user of a mobile device is a driver or passenger in a vehicle, based on the location and movements of the user by proxy of the location and movements of the mobile device within the vehicle. Specification, at [0004]. This determination relies, at least in part, on analyzing motion data collected by sensors of the mobile device, such as accelerometers and gyroscopes, to identify events like vehicle entry. Id. at [0105]; see also [0107]. Critically, distinctions such as on which side of the vehicle the user entered, or the direction of motion during a driving event, are reflected in the patterns of acceleration forces measured by the mobile device. Id. at [0106], [0107]. These patterns are then used to infer whether the user is likely situated in the driver's seat or a passenger seat. Id.
However, a central technical challenge addressed by the present invention is that the
sensors of a mobile phone measure acceleration and rotational forces with respect to the phone's own reference frame, not that of the vehicle. Id. at [0133]. Unlike fixed in-vehicle hardware, a mobile phone may be placed anywhere within the vehicle and in any orientation, such as in a pocket, on a seat, or in a bag. Id. at [0173].
The relative orientation of the phone's reference frame with respect to the vehicle's reference frame is thus neither fixed nor predictable. Id. at [0133]. As a result, raw sensor data from the mobile device cannot be meaningfully interpreted in terms of vehicle dynamics or user location without first resolving how the phone's axes are oriented relative to the axes of the vehicle. Id. Moreover, because the phone may move or be reoriented during a trip, this alignment must be determined close in time to the measurement events used for driver/passenger classification. Id. at [0112].
direction changes during parking or at the start of a drive) to resolve the alignment with respect to the vehicle's reference frame. Id. at [0012]-[0015], [0139]-[0147]. This approach ensures that the sensor data is accurately transformed to correspond to the physical layout of the vehicle, thereby enabling reliable inference of user position (e.g., driver versus passenger) based on the detected motion patterns. Id. at [0133], [0135].
As described throughout the Specification, including in the discussion of FIGS. 6 and 9, this inventive alignment process addresses a technical problem unique to mobile-based vehicle sensing and reflects a concrete improvement to technology, analogous to the solutions found patent-eligible in Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Specifically, the Federal Circuit in Thales Visionix held that "a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform did not merely recite the abstract idea of using mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame." MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Likewise, the claims as currently amended recite a particular method of transforming accelerometer data collected by a mobile device disposed in a vehicle into acceleration forces expressed with respect to the reference frame of the vehicle, by (i) measuring acceleration events with respect to the mobile device's reference frame, (ii) classifying the measured accelerations as corresponding to user or vehicle motion, (iii) detecting and analyzing a series of braking and forward acceleration events to determine the direction of those events with respect to both the mobile device's and the vehicle's reference frames, and (iv) transforming the measured acceleration forces to be with respect to the reference frame of the vehicle using the determined directions.
determining user location within the vehicle. In this way, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a concrete practical application directed to a specific technological problem, and not simply to the use of a computer as a tool for executing an otherwise abstract process.
By reciting these specific alignment and transformation steps, the present claims effect an improvement in the functioning of a mobile-based vehicle sensing system and the technical field of estimating vehicle dynamics using non-fixed mobile sensors. Thus, Applicant submits that the decision in Thales Visionix applies to the present claims and that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea at least due to the above improvements to the technical field of using mobile phone sensors to estimate vehicle dynamics.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1, 19, and 21 are
directed to patent-eligible subject matter and overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Here the examiner does not agree with the applicant but, the concern of the examiner is that as claimed the claims are a mental process. As currently claimed, there is no outcome to the invention other than collecting information. If applicant were to claim a result or outcome other than data analysis then the applicant would be persuasive.
The dependent claims are argued by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 1-10 and 19-27 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatenable over Abramson (8,290,480).
Without acquiescing to the propriety of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, claim 1 has been amended to expedite prosecution of the present application. As amended, claim 1 recites, in part:
analyzing ... a subset of the second set of accelerations that are associated
with a first event of the one or more braking events or the one or more forward acceleration events to determine a direction of the first event with respect to the
reference frame of the mobile phone;
analyzing ... signs of the acceleration forces along a same axis for the one
or more braking events and the one or more forward acceleration events to
determine a direction of the first event with respect to a reference frame of the
and
transforming ... the acceleration forces measured with respect to the
reference frame of the mobile phone to be aligned with the reference frame of the vehicle using the direction of the first event with respect to the reference frame of
the mobile phone and the direction of the first event with respect to the reference
frame of the vehicle"
(emphasis added).
Independent claims 19 and 21 have been amended to include similar features. Support for the amendments is in the original application, for example in claims 5 and 6, as well as paragraphs [0133]-[0135] and [0138]-[0140] of the application as originally filed. No new matter is added.
As discussed during the interview, Applicant respectfully submits that Abramson fails to disclose or render obvious at least the above quoted features of amended claim 1.
Abramson is generally directed to "systems and methods for determining an in-vehicle role of a user of a mobile device." Abramson, at col. 11, 11. 59-61. Abramson describes examples of "a number of inputs that can be utilized in various arrangements in order to identify one or more user determination characteristics, such as the location of a mobile device 105 and/or if a mobile device 105 is being operated by the driver or by the passenger of a car/truck/bus." Id. at col. 47, 11. 63-67. The Office Action cites a few of those examples in the rejection of claim 1, such as description of an analysis of upward acceleration during forward acceleration or deceleration (e.g., braking) events in col. 52. However, before discussing these examples, Abramson notes, in col. 47, 11. 19-24, that in those examples, "it will be assumed that the various mobile device(s) 105, 160 is (are) aligned with the vehicle within which they are traveling." However, while Abramson may use the directionality of various events, including braking and acceleration events, to determine an in-vehicle role of a user of a mobile device, it does not describe using this information to transform "acceleration forces measured with respect to the reference frame of the mobile phone to be aligned with the reference frame of the vehicle" in the first place, as recited in amended claim 1.
Instead, Abramson explains, at col. 46, 1. 62 through col. 47, 1. 3, that "to orient/align the device 105 with the coordinates of a car, the devices 105 north (detected, e.g., via its compass sensor) can be compared with the vehicle's GPS ... heading." Abramson explains again, at col.
59, 11. 6-17, that establishing the orientation of a mobile device within the coordinate system of a car can be accomplished by "comparing/processing inputs from GPS 145C that correspond to direction angles with inputs from magnetometer 145E that reflect "north."" In other words, to align the mobile device to the reference frame of the vehicle, Abramson uses the direction of a compass heading (i.e., north) with respect to the reference frame of the mobile device and the direction of the compass heading with respect to the reference frame of the vehicle.
However, this is substantially different than using the direction of an acceleration event with respect to the reference frame of a mobile phone and the direction of the event with respect to the reference frame of the vehicle (e.g., forward vs. backward), as required in claim 1. Therefore, Abramson fails to teach or disclose at least these features of claims 1, 19, and 21.
Here in view of the applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot in view of the addition of US Patent Publication 20130096731 to Tamari.
The dependent claims are argued by virtue of dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
From IP.com
Automatic Identification of Driver’s Smartphone Exploiting Common Vehicle-Riding Actions, IEEE 2018
Identifying Occurrences of Abnormal and Drunk Driving Using Smartphones, IEEE 2023
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693