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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 06/29/26 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 2, 3, 5-7, 11-13, 17, 18, 22, 27-30, 32, 34-36 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 11-13, 17, 18, 22, 27-30, 32, 34-36, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a method, system, and a non-transitory computer readable medium; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of determining if any penalties or incentives should be applied to an account of a driver of a vehicle that has been rented.
Using claim 2 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 11 and 18, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
receiving telematics data collected over a period of time, wherein the telematics data is indicative of operation of the vehicle during the period of time;
receiving vehicle sensor data captured by the second sensor of the data collection device during the period of time
determining based on the telematics data, a driving behavior occurring during the period of time, the driving behavior being characterized by a behavior value;
detecting based on the vehicle sensor data received via the second communication link, a change in a rate of tire rotation of tires of the vehicle;
determining based on the change in the rate of tire rotation, a road surface condition existing during occurrence of the driving behavior;
modifying based on the road surface condition, a threshold value associated with the driving behavior, wherein modifying the threshold value results in an adjusted threshold value;
determining that the behavior value satisfies the adjusted threshold value;
based on receiving the vehicle sensor data, retrieving a usage preference setting associated with an owner of the vehicle;
determining based on the vehicle sensor data, that the usage a current use of the vehicle satisfies the usage preference setting; and
based on determining that the behavior value satisfies the adjusted threshold value and that the current use of the vehicle satisfies the usage preference setting, causing a change to be applied to an account
The above limitations represents the concept of applying the terms and conditions set forth in a vehicle rental contract (thresholds for driving behaviors, penalties or incentives associated therewith that are based on owner preferences) to determine if a penalty or an incentive is to be applied to an account of the driver. This is construed as reciting a legal interaction (contractual obligation, execution of the terms and conditions of a contract) that is part of a commercial interaction of renting a vehicle to a user. The claim is evaluating received telematics and sensor data that is analyzed to determine if a fee is to be charged, such as when a renter takes a vehicle out of a given state where the rental contract does not allow for that, and pays a fee due to the violation of the terms of the contract. The claimed evaluations can also be performed mentally by analyzing data to determine if the claimed behavior values satisfies a threshold, and if a change is to be applied (a penalty or an incentive). Renting vehicles to users and charging fees (penalties) for certain actions taken by the driver is reciting a fundamental economic practice that is a commercial practice from the rental vehicle industry. The claim is receiving data and processing the data to determine if an incentive or penalty is to be applied, which qualifies as a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea, where the steps also are capable of being performed mentally by a person using the claimed data to make the claimed determinations. For these reasons the claims are found to be reciting the abstract idea of determining if any penalties or incentives should be applied to an account of a driver of a rented vehicle.
For claims 2, 11, 18, the additional elements are:
establishing a first communication link between a mobile device carried by a vehicle and a first processor remote from the vehicle;
receiving of the telematics data via a communication link, from a first sensor disposed in the mobile device
establishing a second communication link between the first processor and a second processor associated with the vehicle, wherein the second processor is communicatively coupled to a second sensor disposed within a data collection device of the vehicle and separate from the mobile device;
receiving, at the first processor and via the second communication link, vehicle sensor data that was captured by the sensor
the mobile device
the first processor
a second processor of the vehicle
calling the account an electronic account
Claims 11 and 18 also recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that allow for the claimed steps to occur.
This judicial exception recited in claims 2, 11, 18, is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individual and in combination as a whole, amount to the use of a processor(s) connected by a network and a computer readable medium, that are simply being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited processors, mobile device, sensors for the mobile device and the vehicle, and by using a computer readable medium with instructions that causes a processor to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. The claimed devices are nothing more than generically recited computer hardware and the specification makes it clear that no special computers are required beyond that of generic computing technology. The use of the claimed sensors to collect vehicle data is using a device for its intended purpose, which is the use of a sensor to collect data. This is using a sensor to sense vehicle related data, which is what vehicle sensors do by definition. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) in this regard as far as the use of a device in its ordinary capacity in conjunction with a judicial exception. The claim is establishing a communication link between a remote first processor and a mobile device that a person carries in a vehicle, and establishes a communication link between the remote first processor and a processor of the vehicle, for the purpose of collecting the necessary data to be able to determine if a change is to be applied to the electronic account of the user. The claimed extent of the use of the communication links, the mobile device and the vehicle processor and sensors is to collect the data that is used in the abstract idea to determine if a penalty or an incentive is to be applied. As was stated in Electric Power Group (CAFC 2015-1778), claims directed to collecting data from disparate data sources and analyzing the data was found to be an abstract idea, even when recited in the context of an electrical power grid. The same can be said of the use of the two communication channels by the use of the mobile device and vehicle processor, as far as this is just claiming two sources for received information that is being analyzed to determine if there is to be a change made to an account, such as a financial incentive or penalty for a rental. The additional elements do not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea with computing devices connected by a network, and is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application; therefore, the claims is/are found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
Additionally, the use of the two separate communication channels is not found to provide for integration and is taken as just specifying two sources for the received data that is being analyzed in the abstract idea, with no criticality or inventive concept being found in the use of two communication channels as opposed to one communication channel. The use of the communication channels for the 1st processor to receive the data, so that the claimed analysis can occur, is an instruction for one to use computers and a network to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. This is a general link to computer implementation and does not provide for integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The specification makes it clear that the remote processor can receive vehicle data from the first communication link or the second communication link separately, and teaches that the vehicle data received by the second processor can be sent to the first communication link to be sent to the remote processor. There is no inventive concept found in the use of two communication links as opposed to one communication link, where the mobile device and/or the processor of the vehicle can be responsible for sending the claimed data to the remote processor. This is a general link to computer implementation and does not provide for integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a processor(s) that are connected to each other by a network (communication links) and a computer readable medium, with instructions that causes a processor to perform the steps that define the abstract idea, and the use of a sensor to sense data as was addressed above. The use of the claimed sensors to collect vehicle data is using a device for its intended purpose, which is the use of a sensor to collect data. See 2106.05(f)(2) in this regard. The claim is establishing a communication link between a remote first processor and a mobile device that a person carries in a vehicle, and establishes a communication link between the remote first processor and a processor of the vehicle, for the purpose of collecting the necessary data to be able to determine if a change is to be applied to the electronic account of the user. The claimed extent of the use of the communication links, the mobile device and the vehicle processor and sensors is to collect the data that is used in the abstract idea to determine if a penalty or an incentive is to be applied, as was stated above for the 2nd prong. This does not provide for significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 2, 11, 18 do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 3, claiming that the account is associated with a driver exhibiting the driving behavior is claiming more about the abstract idea and the fact that the account is for a user. This is part of the abstract idea. The claim also recites the receipt of an indication that a driver has agreed to terms included in a rental contract for renting the vehicle from an owner, where the terms include at least one of potential penalties or incentives based on driving behavior, and reciting the comparison between the behavior value and the adjusted threshold for the change, is reciting more about the abstract idea of claim 2. Agreeing to terms of a rental contract and its execution based on those terms, is a further recitation to a legal interaction that is the renting of a vehicle, as was stated for claim 2. The claimed processor and the reference to “electronic” for the account has been treated in the same manner that is set forth for claim 2 to which applicant is referred. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 5, the claimed modifying of the threshold based on at least one of the claimed conditions and the data that it is based on, are what in part defines the abstract idea of the claims. Nothing is claimed except more about the abstract idea of claim 2. No further additional elements are recited for consideration beyond that already addressed for claims 2. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claims 6, 7, the claimed determining of the driving behavior and the behavior values, etc. are all elements that are part of the abstract idea of claim 2. No further additional elements are recited for consideration beyond that already addressed for claim 2. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 12, the receiving of an indication that the terms of a rental contract have been agreed to, and sending a message to the driver or owner indicating a penalty or incentive, is considered to be reciting more about the abstract idea. This is the parties entering into a contract for the use of the vehicle and the terms and conditions associated with the use of the vehicle. The reference to the message being electronic has been treated in the same manner that was set forth for claim 11. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 13, the claimed telematics data is part of the abstract idea and is reciting data or information per se. Using values such as acceleration or speed or lateral force to determine the driving behavior is claiming the data that is also part of the abstract idea. The sensed data itself is part of the abstract idea because it is information per se. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 17, determining the claimed driving metric and composite threshold value and causing the change to be applied, are all elements that are part of the abstract idea. No further additional elements are recited for consideration beyond that already addressed for claim 11. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 22, the applicant is reciting a further embellishment of the abstract idea of claim 11. Reciting the determining of a time a vehicle is stopped based on data (where the data comes from as far as a sensor is outside of the claim scope), serves to further define the abstract idea. The data that is used to determine the time the vehicle is stopped, and the recitation of the data being from a sensor, is simply reciting data or information per se, which is something that is part of the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 27, the claimed determining of an adjustment specific to the vehicle in the claimed manner, and the adjusted threshold value, is reciting more about the abstract idea of claim 2. This is part of the abstract idea and is something that a person can do. A person (human being) can determine an adjustment specific to a vehicle and an adjusted threshold value by using data such as the claimed preference setting. The claim(s) is/are not found to be eligible. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claims 28, 29, the abstract idea is being further defined by reciting the settings and the use of the settings for determining the usage. Claiming the setting as being a maximum weight to be carried in the vehicle, or the setting for an animal being in the vehicle, or for carrying a child, are all elements that serve to define more about the abstract idea. This is the preference of the vehicle owner as far as how they want the rented car to be used or to not be used. Using this data and comparing it to collected sensor data is what further defines the abstract idea. The use of the sensor has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 1. Using a weight sensor to sense a weight, so that one can determine if the weight carried by the vehicle satisfies a user setting value, is using the weight sensor in its ordinary capacity to do what it does, which is to determine/sense a weight. This is claiming the use of a device in its ordinary capacity to do what it does, similar to the use of a telephone unit in TLI, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
For claim 30, reciting that the current use (of the vehicle) includes a type of passenger is reciting more about the abstract idea. The same is noted for the use of the sound or video to determine the passenger type, this is reciting an element that is part of the abstract idea. The use of the microphone or the camera has been treated as being the ordinary use of a device to do what it is designed to do, which is a microphone sensing sound and a camera taking a video. This is claiming the use of a device in its ordinary capacity to do what it does, similar to the use of a telephone unit in TLI, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 32, reciting that the usage preference is a geolocation boundary within which the vehicle may operate, and the determining of the locations during a period of time using the telematics data, so that it can be determined if the locations fall in the boundary and determining that the current use of the vehicle satisfies the usage preference is claiming more about the abstract idea of claim 11. This is claiming another preference, such as not being allowed to use the vehicle outside of a given area, such as a county or state or other defined area, or else a penalty can be applied to the account of the user. This is reciting more about the abstract idea and the terms and conditions under which use of the vehicle is allowed or preferred by the renter/owner. No further additional element is claimed for consideration. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claims 34, 35, the abstract idea is being further defined by the recited elements. Detecting the rate of change in the rate of tire rotation as claimed and the lowing of the threshold value based on ice on the roadway is a further description of the abstract idea and the data that is used. No further additional element is claimed beyond those already addressed for claim 2. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 36, the detecting of the proximity of a second vehicle based on the received vehicle sensor data and withholding a further change to be applied to the account are both elements that serve to define more about the abstract idea of the claims. Using the sensor data to detect if a vehicle as in proximity for a braking event, and using that detection to determine to withhold a further change to the account is more data processing that is part of the abstract idea. This claim is determining that the situation was such that due to another vehicle being in proximity to the vehicle being driven, in the event there is a braking event the driver is not being punished by applying a further change to the account. This is part of the abstract idea. The claimed processor has been treated in the same manner that was set forth for claim 2, and does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more. The claim is not eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 11-13, 17, 18, 22, 27-30, 32, 34-36, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. On page 13 of the reply the applicant cites to all of claim 2, and argues on page 14 that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. The applicant argues that the claims cannot be considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities because they recite a specific technical process, with citation to the establishment of the communication links and use of the sensor data to apply a change to an account. The applicant argues that the claim are reciting a processor implemented derivation from a physical signal. This is not persuasive and is simply arguing that because the claimed invention is implemented by a processor it is eligible. This is not persuasive because the extent of the use of the processor is that it is receiving data and using the received data to determine if a penalty or an incentive is to be applied to an account of a driver. The fact that the invention as claimed is processor implemented is an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea. This does not mean that the claim is not reciting an abstract idea at step 2A of the analysis. The sensors are being used for the purpose of detecting data that is being sent to the processor so the processor can determine if a change is to be applied to an account, such as an incentive or a penalty. This is nothing more than using a processor (a computer) as a tool to execute the abstract idea and does not result in the claim not reciting an abstract idea at step 2A. The presence of a computer in a claimed invention does not preclude a finding that the claim itself recites an abstract idea at step 2A of the analysis.
The applicant argues that a human being cannot interpret telematics data to determine a driver behavior, rate of tire rotation. This is not persuasive. If the telematics data indicates a rate of tire rotation, then a person can read that and understand it. A human being can read data that is representative of the operation of a vehicle and can interpret it. That is the act of a person using acceleration data to determine that a braking event occurred, or that an excessive acceleration event occurred. Nothing is claimed about the telematics data that makes it unable to be interpreted by a person. The broadly claimed data is fully capable of being interpreted by a human being. The argument is not persuasive.
The argument that the claims do not recite a certain method of organizing human activities is not persuasive. The applicant argues that the claims are a sensor dependent determination of tire rotation and road conditions, which is not a certain method of organizing human activities or a mental process. This is not persuasive. The act of determining how a vehicle was used by a driver, to determine if a penalty or an incentive is to be applied to an account (the claimed change is broadly recited and can be a fee or a credit), is part of the act of enforcing the terms and conditionals of a rental contract, and in that sense is a certain method of organizing human activities. As to the mental process argument, a human being can review telematics data and to determine if the data represents a situation where a penalty or an incentive is to be applied to an account of the user. There is no reasoning that has provided as to why a human being cannot review telematics vehicle sensor data to determine how the vehicle as being operated. The argument is not persuasive.
On page 16 the applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application at the 2nd prong of the analysis. The applicant argues that the claims are directed to an improvement in vehicle monitoring technology. The applicant argues that the use of a first and second communication link and determining road conditions through technical interference serves a distinct purpose. While those limitations may serve a purpose, they are performing the act of monitoring how a vehicle is being used so that the owner of the vehicle can assess a penalty or an incentive to an account of the user. There is nothing claimed that improves any of the technology recited in the claims. The sensors are simply used to collect data so that the processor can determine if a change is to be made to an account of the driver. That does not serve to improve technology in any manner.
The applicant argues that detecting a tire rotation rate and determining a road surface condition is not using a sensor for its intended purpose. This is not persuasive. The sensor is being used to detect tire rotation. The processor is being used to take that data that is representative of the tire rotation and determine a road condition. The applicant is arguing that the sensor is not being used in its ordinary capacity when it is, because the processor is the element that is responsible for determining the road condition from the sensor data. The sensor is just sending and collecting data so that the abstract idea can be performed, which is using a sensor for its intended purpose, which is to sense data. The claimed inference that is argued to modify the threshold value does not improve vehicle monitoring accuracy. The argued element is what defines the abstract idea and is the act of using sensor data to infer something from the data. That does not provide for an improvement to any of the technology of the claim and is not improving the process of monitoring the operation of a vehicle. The argument is not persuasive.
The argument that is making an analogy to example 40, claim 1 is not persuasive. Claim 1 of example 40 was found to be eligible because it provided for an improvement to network monitoring. Specifically, the method of example 40 limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. The collected data can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring that improves the performance of the network as a result. No such analogy can be made to the pending claims that are not improving technology in any manner. Example 40 was not eligible because it was reciting an improvement in collecting traffic data as has been argued. When looking at the pending claims and how the claimed invention is collecting the data, the examiner notes that it is done by simply using sensors to collect data and by using a communication link to send the data to a processor. There is no specific manner by which the data is being collected that result in an improvement to technology, such as by improving the operation or functioning of the processor or the vehicle, etc.. The claimed use of the sensors in the claim is nothing more than using a computer as a tool to execute the abstract idea for a data collection step, and so that the data processing can occur that defines the abstract idea. That does not provide for integration into a practical applicant and is not similar to example 40 from the USPTO examples. The argument is not persuasive.
As to the argument that the claims are adapting a threshold that is analogous to the adapting of collected data, as stated above, the result of the claim does not serve to improve technology in any manner. The part of the claim that is making the inference, by using the collected sensor data to determine a road condition to adjust a threshold value that is used to determine if a penalty or incentive is to be applied to an account of the user is not a technological improvement but is the abstract idea. The reliance upon example 40 is not found to be persuasive.
On pages 17-18 the applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more. The applicant argues that step 2B requires an independent analysis of the claim as a whole (which has been done in the rejection of record) and argues the following:
1. Two separate communication links to two physically distinct devices (a mobile device and a vehicle data collection device), each serving a structurally distinct analytical function: the first link provides telematics data for driving behavior determination, and the second link provides vehicle sensor data for environmental condition inference and usage preference verification.
This argument is not commensurate with the claim scope as far as there is no difference between the claimed telematics data and the vehicle sensor data. Vehicle telematics data is vehicle sensor data so there is nothing special about using two communication links that would somehow render the claims eligible for this reason. The data that is obtained via the first communication link and/or the second communication link can be the same. There is nothing claimed that differentiates the data that is being collected from the first and second communication channels from each other. Also, as was addressed in the 101 rejection, the use of the two separate communication channels is just specifying two sources for the received data that is being analyzed in the abstract idea, with no criticality or inventive concept being found in the use of two communication channels as opposed to one communication channel. The use of the communication channels for the 1st processor to receive the data, so that the claimed analysis can occur, is an instruction for one to use computers and a network to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. This is a general link to computer implementation and does not provide for integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The specification makes it clear that the remote processor can receive vehicle data from the first communication link or the second communication link separately, and teaches that the vehicle data received by the second processor can be sent to the first communication link to be sent to the remote processor. There is no inventive concept found in the use of two communication links as opposed to one communication link, where the mobile device and/or the processor of the vehicle can be responsible for sending the claimed data to the remote processor. This is a general link to computer implementation that is merely specifying two sources for information, and does not amount to reciting significantly more.
The applicant argues:
2. A technical inference pipeline in which the processor detects a change in tire
rotation rate from vehicle sensor data and infers a road surface condition, which is an inference that the sensor does not directly provide.
The above is part of the abstract idea that is using collected data to make an inference. People can do this mentally if they want to, by looking at data to make a conclusion about what the data represents. This is arguing the abstract idea, which does not provide for significantly more that itself.
The applicant argues:
3. Dynamic modification of an evaluation threshold based on the inferred road surface condition.
The above is arguing part of the abstract idea that is using data to modify a threshold. People can do this mentally if they want to, by looking at data to make a conclusion about how to adjust a threshold. This is arguing the abstract idea, which does not provide for significantly more that itself.
The applicant argues:
4. A dual-gate determination requiring satisfaction of BOTH an adjusted driving
behavior threshold AND an owner's usage preference setting before any change is applied to an account.
This above is arguing the abstract idea. Requiring that an adjusted behavior threshold and an owners usage preference setting must be satisfied before making a change to the account is arguing the abstract idea. This cannot and does not provide for significantly more that itself. It is the additional elements of the claim that when viewed with the claim as a whole render the claims eligible. Arguing how the decision is made to make a change to an account of a user or not is arguing the abstract idea which does not represent significantly more.
The argument on page 18 of the reply that the claims recite a particular architecture with particular data flows and a particular inference step and a particular conditional logic structure (a high level summarization of the actual claimed invention) is not persuasive. Just because something is claimed in a particular manner by claiming specific steps to a process that represents an abstract idea does not mean that the claim is eligible. The argument from the applicant is a general allegation that the claims are specific so they are eligible. This is not persuasive as even narrowly drafted abstract ideas are still abstract ideas so the specificity of a claimed invention is not dispositive for the eligibility issue.
The applicant argues on page 18 that the examiner cannot find the claims as property rejected when the examiner has not considered the combination as a whole. This is not persuasive because the examiner has considered the claimed combination as a whole, which the rejection of record addresses. The additional elements of the claim when viewed with the claim as a whole are taken as an instruction for one to practice the abstract idea using a processor that is receiving sensor data from two sources so that it can be analyzed to determine if a change is to be made to an account of a user, where the claimed method is being done so that the preferences of an owner are reflected in an agreed upon rental contract and are able to be enforced by looking at the vehicle sensor data and telematics data to ascertain the operation of the vehicle. The combination of the claimed invention as a whole is not eligible for the reasons set forth in the 35 USC 101 rejection of record.
The argument for claims 34-36 relies on the argument for claim 2 that was not found to be persuasive. Claims 34-36 have been addressed in the rejection of record and are not found to be eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schreier et al. (20180135989) disclose a system and method for the collection of data from a vehicle via a telematics device of a vehicle and by way of a mobile device of a user. This results in the use of two communication channels for the collection of vehicle data as claimed. Paragraph 018 teaches:
In particular, the route selection system may collect driving data from a telematics device in a driver's vehicle and/or from the driver's mobile device. For example, a mobile application may be installed on the driver's mobile device in order to monitor driving data using one or more sensors of the mobile device. The driving data may include real-time data that is collected by one or more sensors (e.g., accelerometer, GPS, gyroscope, and the like) while the driver is driving, such as the driver's speeds, accelerations, braking, GPS coordinates, the vehicle location, and the like. Based on the collected driving data, the route selection system may determine driving behaviors of the driver. For example, driving behaviors may be based on a driver's speed, acceleration, braking, steering, turn signals, number of miles driven for a trip, amount of time driven or trip duration, road condition ratings, and the like.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights