DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a FINAL office action in response to the Applicant’s response filed 21 November 2026.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11, and 17-19 have been amended.
The 112 (b) rejection for claims 3-5 has been overcome by amendments.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 November 2025 with regards to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on pages 8 and 9 of their response:
“The method in amended claim 1 determines the aggression rating based on accelerations in different directions and the vehicle speed as compared to a speed limit for the road on which the vehicle is traveling. Thus, the aggression rating is location dependent and not merely vehicle dynamic parameter dependent. This enables the relative speeds and accelerations to be given context that greatly improves the rating of drivers based on aggressive driving habits. Drivers tend to ignore outputs that are not sufficiently accurate and do not jibe with their personal experience, and the method of claim 1 enables improved outputs as well as outputs contemporaneous with vehicle use. In this regard, different drivers travel on different types of roads, for example, highways or city roads, more frequently and different efficiencies are possible for the different types of roads, and in particular, different speeds and speed limits. Speed alone does not correlate to aggressive driving, and accelerations also vary as a function of vehicle speed (e.g. it is more difficult to achieve a high rate of forward acceleration when the vehicle is traveling at a higher speed. As noted in paragraph 43 of the present application, a given mile per hour differential between vehicle speed and a speed limit can lead to different aggression ratings based on the speed limit. As an example, driving 10 miles per hour over a 25 mile per hour speed limit is much greater, percentage-wise, than is driving 10 miles per hour over a 60 mile per hour speed limit. The method of claim 1 thus takes into account the vehicle location and the speed limit at the vehicle location, and the vehicle speed compared to the location-specific speed limit. The cited references, as noted below in response to the obviousness rejection of claim 1, do not disclose, among other things, road or speed limit- specific aggression modification and determination.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the method recited in claim 1 is considered to involve an abstract idea, such as a mental process (which Applicant does not agree with), the method is integrated into a practical application at least by virtue of the above-recited subject matter of claim 1 and the specific outputs provided. Further, the stated rejection of claim 1 as relating to the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas is improper. The method of claim 1 does not relate only to determining ratings for aggression and energy use, and do not recite a generic "interface" as alleged in the Office Action. The method as originally presented calls for a specific interface by which multiple drivers can view a driver's score or ranking, which cannot be done by a mental process. The method of amended claim 1 further provides a second, distinct output that occurs within a vehicle and which is related in time to the occurrence of an aggression rating that exceeds a threshold for providing a driver with such feedback.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument, “The cited references, as noted below in response to the obviousness rejection of claim 1, do not disclose, among other things, road or speed limit- specific aggression modification and determination,” the Examiner is not persuaded. In particular, the findings and conclusion of prior art in view of 35 USC 102 and 103 are irrelevant to the determination of whether an Applicant’s claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter in view of 35 USC 101. Notably, MPEP 2106.05(I) states, “Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the Courts and the MPEP have made clear that the findings under 35 USC 102 and 103, and the prior art, is irrelevant when determining whether an Applicant’s claim recites patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101, and thus, the Applicant’s argument discussing said prior art when evaluating the claims under 35 USC 101, is moot. Second, with regards to the Applicant’s argument that the, “method is integrated into a practical application at least by virtue of the above-recited subject matter of claim 1 and the specific outputs provided,” the Examiner is not persuaded. Notably, the Applicant’s argument makes a conclusory statement regarding the “above-recited subject matter of claim 1 and the specific outputs provided,” however the Applicant’s argument does not address any reasoning in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e) which would support their baseless conclusory statement. In this case, the Applicant’s argument merely references generalized steps of the Applicant’s invention, without referencing the specific claim elements themselves, which does not provide evidence that the claims recite additional elements, that when taken individual or in an ordered combination with the recited abstract idea, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as defined in MPEP 2106.04(d). As such, the Applicant’s general thrust of a “practical application,” without identifying said elements that they view as providing said integration, renders the Applicant’s argument not persuasive. Third, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “The method of claim 1 does not relate only to determining ratings for aggression and energy use, and do not recite a generic ‘interface’ as alleged in the Office Action. The method as originally presented calls for a specific interface by which multiple drivers can view a driver's score or ranking, which cannot be done by a mental process. The method of amended claim 1 further provides a second, distinct output that occurs within a vehicle and which is related in time to the occurrence of an aggression rating that exceeds a threshold for providing a driver with such feedback,” the Examiner is not persuaded. In this case, claim 1 has been amended to state, “determining an aggression rating associated with current use of a vehicle, wherein the aggression rating is based on magnitude of acceleration increasing vehicle speed, acceleration decreasing vehicle speed, acceleration during turning of the vehicle, and vehicle speed compared to a speed limit on which the vehicle is traveling; determining an energy use rating as a function of the aggression rating over a period of time; determining at least one score or ranking based on one or both of the aggression rating and the energy use rating; and providing an interface by which multiple drivers can view said at least one score or ranking, or information relating thereto; and determining that the aggression rating exceeds a feedback threshold and providing feedback to a driver of the vehicle in real-time within the vehicle, wherein the feedback threshold is predetermined relative to a baseline aggression rating, and wherein the feedback is one or more of a text message on a display in the vehicle, an audible message or signal or tactile feedback.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the Applicant’s claims recite determining an aggression rating associated with current use of a vehicle, determining an energy use rating as a function of the aggression rating over a period of time, determining at least one score or ranking based on one or both of the aggression rating and the energy use rating, providing an interface by drivers can view said at least one score or ranking, and determining that the aggression rating exceeds a feedback threshold and providing feedback to a driver, wherein the feedback threshold is predetermined relative to a baseline aggression rating. With respect to the previous rejection, it is noted that not all of these original (and amended elements in the current rejection) were stated as reciting “Mental Processes” as argued by the Applicant. In particular, paragraph 12 of the previous Non-Final Rejection stated, “In addition, determining an aggression rating associated with current use of a vehicle, determining an energy use rating as a function of the aggression rating over a period of time, determining a score or ranking based on one or both of the aggression rating and the energy use rating, and providing the score, ranking, or information relating thereto to drivers; encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluations, judgement, opinion). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.” In this case, the Applicant has failed to provide any reasoning or evidence that any of these specifically identified claimed elements cannot be performed in the human mind. Additionally, as shown here, the Applicant has failed to recite any specific structure of the interface, merely that it is used to display “at least one score or ranking, or information relating thereto,” which is thus, deemed merely a generic computer interface being used as a tool to display data; thus, a recitation of “apply it.” The Applicant’s argument fails to rebut this statement, as identified in the rejection, nor have they provided any reasoning as to why this interface is not a generic computer interface, and therefore, the Examiner finds this argument, not persuasive. Additionally, with respect to the newly amended element of determining an aggression rating exceeds a threshold and providing feedback to the driver, the Examiner notes that this further recites providing results to a driver based on an analysis of their driving, which would fall under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and thus, the argument that it does not recite a “Mental Process” is moot. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 10 of their response, “In this regard, the rejection of claim 1 fails to properly consider the entirety of claim 1, including the ordered combination of all of the steps and all of the subject matter of claim 1, rather than just individual elements in isolation. When considered in its entirety, amended claim 1 provides a specific method that includes several elements that cannot be done by a mental process, and the aggression rating determinations as well as the interface output and the separate feedback output are incorporated into a practical application of the driver and driving information system of claim 1. Further, the two specific outputs recited in claim 1 also support the conclusion that claim 1 is not directed to a method that merely organizes human activity, like automating known a financial process, or merely collecting and organizing data. There isn't a relationship or commercial interest being managed and instead, claim 1 recites a method in which actions are taken and outputs provided.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument, “When considered in its entirety, amended claim 1 provides a specific method that includes several elements that cannot be done by a mental process, and the aggression rating determinations as well as the interface output and the separate feedback output are incorporated into a practical application of the driver and driving information system of claim 1,” the Examiner is not persuaded. In particular, the Applicant has failed to provide any reasoning in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05 for why the additional elements integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application; and instead, the Applicant has merely referred to the aggression rating determination, an interface output, and providing feedback. In this case, the providing of an interface to display scores, and providing feedback, encompass merely invoking the use of generic computer elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea, and perform their ordinary functions. MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” In this case, merely invoking the use of generic computer elements to output results of an analysis, is deemed merely using them in their ordinary capacity. As such, these elements do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, and the Examiner is not persuaded of error. Second, with regards to the Applicant’s argument that, “the two specific outputs recited in claim 1 also support the conclusion that claim 1 is not directed to a method that merely organizes human activity, like automating known a financial process, or merely collecting and organizing data. There isn't a relationship or commercial interest being managed and instead, claim 1 recites a method in which actions are taken and outputs provided,” the Examiner is not persuaded. In this case, it is noted that paragraph 12 of the previous Non-Final Rejection stated, “In particular, determining an aggression rating associated with current use of a vehicle, determining an energy use rating as a function of the aggression rating over a period of time, determining a score or ranking based on one or both of the aggression rating and the energy use rating, and providing the score, ranking, or information relating thereto to drivers; encompasses managing driver behavior and relationships, including evaluating their driving behavior and scoring/ranking them, which is both managing human behavior and relationships, the management of commercial activity. Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.” (Emphasis added). In this case, providing scores via an interface and feedback for the driver, encompass managing driver behavior and relationships, including evaluating their driving behavior and scoring/ranking them, which is both managing human behavior and relationships, the management of commercial activity. The mere fact that the claims do not recite a financial process does not prevent the claims from reciting elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the Examiner is not persuaded of error, and the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 10 of their response, “Amended claim 1 increases the divide from a mere abstract generality by providing a still further output to a driver of a vehicle in real-time, when an aggression rating exceeds a threshold rating. The feedback is visual, audible or tactile, and is time-sensitive so that the driver receives feedback contemporaneously with the driving condition causing the feedback to be provided. Thus, the method of claim 1, in addition to providing a way for many drivers to view the scores and rankings of other drivers, provides actions that are specific to the driver and time-relevant, to enable a driver to understand the driving parameters that the system has flagged as being of a greater aggression level. That the aggression rating varies as a function of a speed limit on the road the vehicle is travelling enables the method to better control the feedback, and to better respond to different driving behaviors on different types of roads, among other things.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. In this case, the Examiner notes that the Applicant has failed to identify any reasoning in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05 for why the claimed elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, increasing “the divide from a mere abstract generality” is not a reason for integration into a practical application. Additionally, as noted above, providing output to a driver when aggression rating exceeds a threshold rating, is deemed a part of the abstract idea, which cannot integrate itself into a practical application. Finally, the output being provided in “real-time,” and the format of said feedback, merely narrows the field of use by defining the timing of when results are provided to a user, and defining what format output should take, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It is also noted that varying the aggression rating as a function of a speed limit, merely recites the abstract idea, as discussed above and in the recited rejection, which cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on pages 10 and 11 of their response, “Still further, amended claim 1 does not recite a mere mathematical formula, a set of mental steps, or another abstract idea, but instead describes a particular method-a practical application of broader concepts-which make the invention and claim 1 patent-eligible. The process of claim 1 provides an output for multiple drivers and a separate and distinct and time- sensitive output to a driver of a particular vehicle. Further, the aggression rating that is determined as a function of the speed limit of a road on which a vehicle is traveling, is an improvement to the technology that enables more precise determination of aggressive driving that is context specific. This is not merely applying the idea of rating drivers but goes much further into actively coaching drivers, with contemporaneous feedback outputted to the driver, in a manner by which the drivers can understand the actions that are being rated as highly aggressive, and encouraging peer review of driving scores/rankings. The drivers can then seek to avoid those actions to reduce receipt of feedback and improve driving score and rank.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that claim 1, “does not recite a mere mathematical formula, a set of mental steps, or another abstract idea, but instead describes a particular method-a practical application of broader concepts-which make the invention and claim 1 patent-eligible,” the Examiner is not persuaded. In particular, the Examiner notes that the previous Office Action did not state that the claims recite mathematical formula, and thus this argument is moot as it’s irrelevant to the recited rejection. Additionally, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that the claims do not recite a mere set of mental steps or another abstract idea, the Examiner notes that the previous rejection, as discussed above, identified the specific elements of the claims that recite elements that fall under the “Mental Processes” and the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract idea, and the previous rejection additionally identified the additional elements that do not, when taken individually and in combination with the abstract idea, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more than the abstract idea. Second, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “the aggression rating that is determined as a function of the speed limit of a road on which a vehicle is traveling, is an improvement to the technology that enables more precise determination of aggressive driving that is context specific,” the Examiner is not persuaded. In this case, the Examiner notes that the Applicant has failed to identify what “technology” is specifically improved upon, nor has the Applicant identified the repudiated improvement in technology, other than “enables more precise determination of aggressive driving.” With respect to this, it is noted that determining aggression rating based on metrics, such as speed, is merely the abstract idea, and an improvement in the abstract idea is not an improvement in technology. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states, “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” (Emphasis added). As such, the Applicant’s argument regarding an improvement in technology due to determining aggression rating is deemed not persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 11 of their response, “Still further, claim 1 recites a method that includes multiple ideas that are specific and not abstract. In this regard, claim 1 does not preempt methods of rating drivers or providing feedback to drivers, or interfaces by which multiple drivers can see driver ratings. Instead, the claims are directed to useful, new, not obvious and specific systems and methods for scoring drivers based on aggression, providing group feedback relating to the scores/ratings and also provide real-time feedback to drivers based on aggression rating determinations while a vehicle is in use. Not every or any system or method of rating drivers or alerting drivers or providing group feedback to drivers is claimed, instead, a specific system and method are claimed that enhance the effectiveness of the system and improve the performance of the system as a whole.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. With respect to the Applicant’s argument regarding preemption, MPEP 2106.04(I) states, “While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10-11 n.14 (1981) ("We rejected in Flook the argument that because all possible uses of the mathematical formula were not pre-empted, the claim should be eligible for patent protection"). See also Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics, 839 F.3d at 1150, 120 USPQ2d at 1483; FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1320-21, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Sequenom, 788 F.3d at 1379, 115 USPQ2d at 1158.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the lack of complete preemption does not render a claimed invention eligible. With regards to the Applicants argument that the claims do not preempt all methods of rating drivers or providing feedback to drivers, or interfaces by which multiple drivers can see driver ratings, the Examiner notes that this does render the claims any less abstract, as shown by conducting the Alice/Mayo test indicated by the recited rejection. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 11 of their response, “Dependent claims 2, 3 and 4 recite further improvements to the specific application of the method set forth in claim 1. In claim 2, traffic levels on the road being traveled are used in determining the aggression rating as different accelerations and responses can occur in greater traffic conditions compared to when driving in lesser traffic and on open roads. Claim 3 sets a maximum aggression rating when vehicle tires lose traction and slip or spin on the road. As taught in the present application, different conditions and road types affect vehicle traction and so the method is then responsive to loss of traction as a point for determining maximum aggression rating rather than a fixed value or values for different vehicle dynamic parameters. Claim 4 includes following distance and a following distance threshold set as a function of vehicle speed as yet a further, specific improvement of the method set forth in claim 1, and another factor for improved aggression determination and corresponding outputs from the process and system of claim 1. The remainder of the dependent claims also further distance the claims from a general, abstract idea and set forth still further features that are not mental processes or mere organization of human activity or the like.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, regards to claim 2, the Applicant states, “traffic levels on the road being traveled are used in determining the aggression rating as different accelerations and responses can occur in greater traffic conditions compared to when driving in lesser traffic and on open roads,” however the Applicant has failed to signify how a metric used to identify driving aggression improves some technology, which as addressed above, the Applicant has failed to do with respect to claim 1. Second, with regards to claim 3, the Applicant has argued, “different conditions and road types affect vehicle traction and so the method is then responsive to loss of traction as a point for determining maximum aggression rating rather than a fixed value or values for different vehicle dynamic parameters,” however, this is merely another metric for calculating driving aggression, which fails to improve some technology, which as addressed above, the Applicant has failed to do with respect to claim 1. Third, with respect to claim 4, the Applicant has argued, “following distance and a following distance threshold set as a function of vehicle speed as yet a further, specific improvement of the method set forth in claim 1, and another factor for improved aggression determination and corresponding outputs from the process and system of claim 1,” however, this is merely another metric for calculating driving aggression, which fails to improve some technology, which as addressed above, the Applicant has failed to do with respect to claim 1. As such, for similar reasons as claim 1, the argued amended depended claims, do not provide an improvement in technology, and therefore, do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 with regards to the prior art disclosing aggression rating that is aggression ratings being based on accelerations and speed compared to a speed limit, and providing feedback to a driver when the aggression is beyond a threshold have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite determining an aggression rating associated with current use of a vehicle, wherein the aggression rating is based on magnitude of acceleration increasing vehicle speed, acceleration decreasing vehicle speed, acceleration during turning of the vehicle, and vehicle speed compared to a speed limit on which the vehicle is traveling; determining an energy use rating as a function of the aggression rating over a period of time; determining at least one score or ranking based on one or both of the aggression rating and the energy use rating; and providing an interface by which multiple drivers can view said at least one score or ranking, or information relating thereto; and determining that the aggression rating exceeds a feedback threshold and providing feedback to a driver of the vehicle in real-time within the vehicle, wherein the feedback threshold is predetermined relative to a baseline aggression rating, and wherein the feedback is one or more of a text message on a display in the vehicle, an audible message or signal or tactile feedback.
The limitations of determining an aggression rating associated with current use of a vehicle based on magnitude of acceleration increasing vehicle speed, acceleration decreasing vehicle speed, acceleration during turning of the vehicle, and vehicle speed compared to a speed limit on which the vehicle is traveling, determining an energy use rating as a function of the aggression rating over a period of time, determining at least one score or ranking based the aggression rating or the energy use rating, providing said at least one score, ranking, or information relating thereto to drivers, and determining that the aggression rating exceeds a feedback threshold and providing feedback to a driver of the vehicle, wherein the feedback threshold is predetermined relative to a baseline aggression rating; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass managing human behavior and relationships, the management of commercial activity (managing business relations), and mental processes. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer elements (interface, display, processor, memory, programs), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, determining an aggression rating associated with current use of a vehicle (including the acceleration and speed of the vehicle), determining an energy use rating as a function of the aggression rating over a period of time, determining a score or ranking based on one or both of the aggression rating and the energy use rating, providing the score, ranking, or information relating thereto to drivers, and providing feedback to a driver when the aggression exceeds a threshold based on the baseline threshold; encompasses managing driver behavior and relationships, including evaluating their driving behavior and scoring/ranking them, which is both managing human behavior and relationships, the management of commercial activity. Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, determining an aggression rating associated with current use of a vehicle and based on accelerations and speed of the vehicle, determining an energy use rating as a function of the aggression rating over a period of time, determining a score or ranking based on one or both of the aggression rating and the energy use rating, and providing the score, ranking, or information relating thereto to drivers; encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluations, judgement, opinion). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (interface, display, processor, memory, programs) as tools to carry out the abstract idea. In addition, the claims recite providing feedback in real-time to the driver, which merely narrows the field of use, by further defining the timing of alerting drivers. In addition, the claims further recite providing a text, audible, or tactile message regarding feedback to the user; which merely further narrows the field of use by defining the format in which results are provided to a user. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite basing the aggression rating on determined traffic levels, which merely further recites the abstract idea of determining aggressiveness of a driver; which further falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” and the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract idea, for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1 (claim 2). In addition, the claims further recite that a maximum aggression rating is determined when a vehicle tire slips or spins due to acceleration; which merely further recites the abstract idea of determining aggressiveness of a driver; which further falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” and the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract idea, for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1 (claim 3). In addition, the claims further recite determining an aggression rating based on the following distance of another vehicle which is a function of the speed; which merely further recites the abstract idea of determining aggressiveness of a driver; which further falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” and the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract idea, for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1 (claim 4). In addition, the claims further recite that the energy use rating is a function of a baseline energy level, which merely further narrows the field of use by defining the variables used to make ratings, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 5). In addition, the claims further recite that the score or ranking is higher for a lower aggression rating, which merely further narrows the field of use by defining the format of a scoring system, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 6). In addition, the claims further recite that the energy use rating is determined as a function of an average aggression rating, which merely further narrows the field of use by defining the variables used to make ratings, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 7). In addition, the claims further recite providing information on a website, which is deemed merely using a generic computer as a tool to carry out the abstract idea, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 8). In addition, the claims further recite determining a score or ranking as being done as a function of past scores/ranks, wherein a score is calculated for each trip over some period; which just further recites the abstract idea of calculating scores for users based on their driving history as recited in the independent claims; and thus further falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (claims 9 and 10). In addition, the claims further recite using processor of a vehicle to determine ratings, which is deemed merely using generic machines/computers as tools to carry out the abstract idea, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 12). In addition, the claims further recite the use of a server (comprising processors and memory) to determining ratings, which is deemed merely using generic machines/computers as tools to carry out the abstract idea, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 13). In addition, the claims further recite ranking the driver against other drivers; which just further recites the abstract idea of a score or ranking of a driver behavior as recited in the independent claims; and thus further falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 14). In addition, the claims further recite calculating an award for a driver; which just further recites the abstract idea of determining awards/payment for users based on performance; and thus further falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (claims 15 and 16). In addition, the claims further recite metrics used to determined aggression ratings (increasing speed, decreasing speed, lateral acceleration, speed limit), which merely further narrows the field of use by defining the variables used to make ratings, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 2-3 and 17-19). In addition, the claims further recite the use of accelerometers to collect acceleration readings, which is deemed merely using generic machines/computers as tools to carry out the abstract idea, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 17-19).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russo et al. (US 2023/0132673 A1) (hereinafter Russo), in view of Kukreja et al. (US 10040459 B1) (hereinafter Kukreja), in view of Ittiachen (US 2022/0005086 A1) (hereinafter Ittiachen), in view of Martin et al. (US 2015/0039350 A1) (hereinafter Martin).
With respect to claim 1, Russo teaches:
Determining an aggression rating associated with current use of a vehicle (See at least paragraphs 3, 28, 39, 42, 43, and 59 which describe determining aggression metrics for a driver of a vehicle based on their driving behavior, including braking, accelerating speeding, and lateral maneuvering).
Determining an energy use rating as a function; Determining at least one score or ranking based on one or both of the aggression rating and the energy use rating (See at least paragraphs 3, 4, 27, 28, 42, 43, and 44 which describe determining a driving ratings of a user based on their driving behavior and vehicle usage, and using the aggression metrics and ratings to determine driver score for the user).
Providing an interface by which multiple drivers can view said at least one score or ranking, or information relating thereto (See at least paragraph 4, 27, 43, and 73-76 which describe providing an interface that allows drivers to view their driving scores against other drivers’ scores).
Russo discloses all of the claim 1 as stated above. Russo does not explicitly disclose the following, however Kukreja teaches:
Determining an energy use rating as a function of the aggression rating over a period of time (See at least column 2 line 17-54, column 3 lines 13-22, column 6 lines 16-36, and column 8 line 27 through column 9 line 3 which describe collecting driving behavior information about a driver, such as braking and accelerating magnitudes, wherein this information is used to calculate an energy use rating for the driver, which is used to score the driver based on behavior).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, wherein the information is used to assign an aggression rating to the driver, and an energy rating, wherein the ratings are used to generate a score for the driver and is provided to drivers to view of Russo, with the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, such as braking and accelerating magnitudes, wherein this information is used to calculate an energy use rating for the driver, which is used to score the driver based on behavior of Kukreja. By calculating an energy rating of a driver based on the driving behavior, such as their aggressive driving, and using this to score the driver, a managing system will predictably be able to score drivers such that they receive higher scores/ratings for driving safely and efficiently, thus encouraging safer driving.
The combination of Russo and Kukreja discloses all of the claim 1 as stated above. Russo and Kukreja do not explicitly disclose the following, however Ittiachen teaches:
Wherein the aggression rating is based on magnitude of acceleration increasing vehicle speed, acceleration decreasing vehicle speed, acceleration during turning of the vehicle (See at least paragraphs 18 and 27 which describe calculating driver behavior score based on collected driving metrics, including acceleration, braking, and steering wheel info, and wherein the metrics include roll/yaw/pitch angle/rate, lateral and longitudinal velocity and acceleration, tire slips and slip rates, the amount of fuel and air entering engines, braking applications, and steering wheel turning).
Determining that the aggression rating exceeds a feedback threshold and providing feedback to a driver of the vehicle in real-time within the vehicle, wherein the feedback threshold is predetermined relative to a baseline aggression rating, and wherein the feedback is one or more of a text message on a display in the vehicle, an audible message or signal or tactile feedback (See at least paragraphs 18, 20, and 21 which describe determining a driving behavior exceeds a feedback threshold and providing feedback to the driver in real-time, wherein the threshold is relative to a baseline rating, and the feedback is provided in the vehicle dashboard, a call, or a text message).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, wherein the information is used to assign an aggression rating to the driver, and an energy rating, wherein the ratings are used to generate a score for the driver and is provided to drivers to view of Russo, with the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, such as braking and accelerating magnitudes, wherein this information is used to calculate an energy use rating for the driver, which is used to score the driver based on behavior of Kukreja, with the system and method of determining driving behavior scores based on vehicle acceleration, braking, turning, and speed, and providing feedback to the driver in real-time based on the rating exceeding a threshold, and wherein the feedback is provided as a text message or call of Ittiachen. By using multiple metrics to calculate a driver rating, a system will predictably be able to identify drivers that are safer drivers, and thus present such drivers with positive feedback when needed, and identify that are less safe drivers, and thus present such drivers negative feedback when needed.
The combination of Russo, Kukreja, and Ittiachen discloses all of the claim 1 as stated above. Russo, Kukreja, and Ittiachen do not explicitly disclose the following, however Martin teaches:
Wherein the aggression rating is based on magnitude of acceleration increasing vehicle speed, acceleration decreasing vehicle speed, acceleration during turning of the vehicle, and vehicle speed compared to a speed limit on which the vehicle is traveling (See at least paragraphs 10-12, 15, 26, 28, 34, and 97-103 which describe determining a driver score based on acceleration, braking, lateral acceleration, and vehicle speed compared to posted speed limits).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, wherein the information is used to assign an aggression rating to the driver, and an energy rating, wherein the ratings are used to generate a score for the driver and is provided to drivers to view of Russo, with the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, such as braking and accelerating magnitudes, wherein this information is used to calculate an energy use rating for the driver, which is used to score the driver based on behavior of Kukreja, with the system and method of determining driving behavior scores based on vehicle acceleration, braking, turning, and speed, and providing feedback to the driver in real-time based on the rating exceeding a threshold, and wherein the feedback is provided as a text message or call of Ittiachen, with the system and method of determining a driver score based on acceleration, braking, lateral acceleration, and vehicle speed compared to posted speed limits of Martin. By accounting for multiple accelerations and a vehicles speed compared to posted speed limit, driver rating system will predictably be able to determine how safe a driver is, compared to the rules and regulations of a road, thus ensuring that unsafe drivers are identified and can be alerted for their practices.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Russo, Kukreja, Ittiachen, and Martin discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Martin teaches:
wherein the aggression rating is determined as a function of a determined traffic level on the road on which the vehicle is traveling (See at least paragraphs 10-12, 15, and 23 which describe determining driver ratings based on the traffic on the road, including the distance of the vehicle to other vehicles or objects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, wherein the information is used to assign an aggression rating to the driver, and an energy rating, wherein the ratings are used to generate a score for the driver and is provided to drivers to view of Russo, with the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, such as braking and accelerating magnitudes, wherein this information is used to calculate an energy use rating for the driver, which is used to score the driver based on behavior of Kukreja, with the system and method of determining driving behavior scores based on vehicle acceleration, braking, turning, and speed, and providing feedback to the driver in real-time based on the rating exceeding a threshold, and wherein the feedback is provided as a text message or call of Ittiachen, with the system and method of determining a driver score based on acceleration, braking, lateral acceleration, vehicle speed compared to posted speed limits, and traffic level of Martin. By accounting for the distance between the driver’s vehicle and other vehicles or objects, a driver rating system will predictably be able to determine if a user is being aggressive while driving close to other vehicles, which would increase the risk of driving based accidents, and thus ensure that the driver rating reflects the driver’s true aggressiveness.
With respect to claim 3, Russo/Kukreja/Ittiachen/Martin discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Russo teaches:
Wherein a maximum aggression rating is determined when an acceleration of the vehicle causes a vehicle tire to slip or spin on the road (See at least paragraphs 10-12, 69, and 85-92 which describe calculating a driver score based on tire slippage due to acceleration, wherein weights could be applied to increase the importance of said metric).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, wherein the information is used to assign an aggression rating to the driver, and an energy rating, wherein the ratings are used to generate a score for the driver and is provided to drivers to view of Russo, with the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, such as braking and accelerating magnitudes, wherein this information is used to calculate an energy use rating for the driver, which is used to score the driver based on behavior of Kukreja, with the system and method of determining driving behavior scores based on vehicle acceleration, braking, turning, and speed, and providing feedback to the driver in real-time based on the rating exceeding a threshold, and wherein the feedback is provided as a text message or call of Ittiachen, with the system and method of determining a driver score based on acceleration, braking, lateral acceleration, vehicle speed compared to posted speed limits, and tire slippage due to acceleration, wherein weights could be applied to increase the importance of said metric of Martin. By placing importance of tire slippage, and using this metric for determining driver scores, a rating system will predictably be able to determine if a driver is accelerating at an unsafe rate, causing the lack of traction on a road, and thus, rating the driver in a manner that would encourage them to drive in a safer manner.
With respect to claim 4, Russo/Kukreja/Ittiachen/Martin discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Martin teaches:
Which also includes determining a following distance of the vehicle to a different vehicle that is ahead of the vehicle on the road, and wherein the aggression rating is determined at least in part as a function of following distance threshold that is set as a function of the vehicle speed (See at least paragraphs 10-12, 15, and 23 which describe determining driver ratings based on the following distance from other vehicles, wherein the distance is based on the speed travelled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, wherein the information is used to assign an aggression rating to the driver, and an energy rating, wherein the ratings are used to generate a score for the driver and is provided to drivers to view of Russo, with the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, such as braking and accelerating magnitudes, wherein this information is used to calculate an energy use rating for the driver, which is used to score the driver based on behavior of Kukreja, with the system and method of determining driving behavior scores based on vehicle acceleration, braking, turning, and speed, and providing feedback to the driver in real-time based on the rating exceeding a threshold, and wherein the feedback is provided as a text message or call of Ittiachen, with the system and method of determining a driver score based on acceleration, braking, lateral acceleration, vehicle speed compared to posted speed limits, and traffic level of Martin. By accounting for the distance between the driver’s vehicle and other vehicles or objects, a driver rating system will predictably be able to determine if a user is being aggressive while driving close to other vehicles, which would increase the risk of driving based accidents, and thus ensure that the driver rating reflects the driver’s true aggressiveness.
With respect to claim 6, Russo/Kukreja/Ittiachen/Martin discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Russo teaches:
Wherein the score or ranking is higher for a lower aggression rating (See at least paragraphs 3, 4, 27, 28, 42, 43, and 44 which describe determining a driver score, wherein the higher the score the lower the aggression of the user).
With respect to claim 7, Russo/Kukreja/Ittiachen/Martin discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Kukreja teaches:
Wherein the energy use rating is determined as a function of an average aggression rating over the period of time (See at least column 2 line 17-54, column 3 lines 13-22, column 6 lines 16-36, and column 8 line 27 through column 9 line 3 which describe collecting driving behavior information about a driver, such as braking and accelerating magnitudes, over a period of time, wherein an average behavior over the period is determined, and wherein this information is used to calculate an energy use rating for the driver, which is used to score the driver based on behavior).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, wherein the information is used to assign an aggression rating to the driver, and an energy rating, wherein the ratings are used to generate a score for the driver and is provided to drivers to view of Russo, with the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, such as braking and accelerating magnitudes, wherein this information is used to calculate an energy use rating for the driver, which is used to score the driver based on behavior of Kukreja, with the system and method of determining driving behavior scores based on vehicle acceleration, braking, turning, and speed, and providing feedback to the driver in real-time based on the rating exceeding a threshold, and wherein the feedback is provided as a text message or call of Ittiachen, with the system and method of determining a driver score based on acceleration, braking, lateral acceleration, and vehicle speed compared to posted speed limits of Martin. By calculating an energy rating of a driver based on the driving behavior, such as their aggressive driving, and using this to score the driver, a managing system will predictably be able to score drivers such that they receive higher scores/ratings for driving safely and efficiently, thus encouraging safer driving.
With respect to claim 9, Russo/Kukreja/Ittiachen/Martin discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Russo teaches:
Wherein determining at least one score or ranking is done as a function of information from more than one vehicle trip (See at least paragraphs 3, 4, 38, 39, 41, and 43 which describe determining the score of the driver from vehicle trips over a period of time).
Russo discloses all of the limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Russo does not explicitly disclose the following, however Martin teaches:
Wherein a score of the at least one score is determined each time the vehicle is operated for a predetermined distance or a predetermined time or a predetermined unit of energy consumed (See at least paragraphs 25, 26, 49, 64, and 69 which describe determining a driver score based on collected metrics when on a trip, wherein a timer is set starting when a vehicle is turned on and ends when turned off, which the Examiner notes is a predetermined time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, wherein the information is used to assign an aggression rating to the driver, and an energy rating, wherein the ratings are used to generate a score for the driver and is provided to drivers to view of Russo, with the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, such as braking and accelerating magnitudes, wherein this information is used to calculate an energy use rating for the driver, which is used to score the driver based on behavior of Kukreja, with the system and method of determining driving behavior scores based on vehicle acceleration, braking, turning, and speed, and providing feedback to the driver in real-time based on the rating exceeding a threshold, and wherein the feedback is provided as a text message or call of Ittiachen, with the system and method of determining a driver score based on acceleration, braking, lateral acceleration, vehicle speed compared to posted speed limits, and wherein the rating is calculated each for each trip, and a trip is defined by a timer Martin. By utilizing a timer to define a trip, a driver rating system will predictably ensure that they collect data that can be utilized for rating a driver, and thus, make ratings more accurate.
With respect to claim 10, Russo/Kukreja/Ittiachen/Martin discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as stated above. In addition, Russo teaches:
Wherein determining at least one score or ranking is done as a function of an accumulation of one or more prior scores or one or more prior rankings (See at least paragraphs 3, 4, 38, 39, 41-44, and 58 which describe which describe determining the score of the driver from vehicle trips over a period of time, wherein the score is an accumulation of performance scores from a period of time).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russo, Kukreja, Ittiachen, and Martin as applied to claim 1 as stated above, and further in view of Vangala et a. (US 2017/0309196 A1) (hereinafter Vangala).
With respect to claim 5, Russo/Kukreja/Ittiachen/Martin discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. The combination of Russo, Kukreja, Ittiachen, and Martin does not explicitly disclose, however Vangala teaches:
Wherein the energy use rating is set as a function of a baseline energy use level that is less than an energy use threshold (See at least paragraph 130 which describes receiving user data concerning activities performed, wherein energy level scores for the user are determined over a period of time, wherein a baseline energy score is further calculated, and further energy scores are calculated and a determination is made if this energy score is an anomalous score by being less than a threshold level from a baseline energy score).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, wherein the information is used to assign an aggression rating to the driver, and an energy rating, wherein the ratings are used to generate a score for the driver and is provided to drivers to view of Russo, with the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, such as braking and accelerating magnitudes, wherein this information is used to calculate an energy use rating for the driver, which is used to score the driver based on behavior of Kukreja, with the system and method of determining driving behavior scores based on vehicle acceleration, braking, turning, and speed, and providing feedback to the driver in real-time based on the rating exceeding a threshold, and wherein the feedback is provided as a text message or call of Ittiachen, with the system and method of determining a driver score based on acceleration, braking, lateral acceleration, and vehicle speed compared to posted speed limits of Martin, with the system and method of receiving user data concerning activities performed, wherein energy level scores for the user are determined over a period of time, wherein a baseline energy score is further calculated, and further energy scores are calculated and a determination is made if this energy score is an anomalous score by being less than a threshold level from a baseline energy score of Vangala. By ensuring that the energy use score is a function of the baseline energy, and less than a threshold, a managing system can predictably ensure that drivers use their vehicles in an efficient manner, and if they don’t, determining remedies for the drivers, thus saving money by the service providers by reducing waste.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russo, Kukreja, Ittiachen, and Martin as applied to claim 1 as stated above, and further in view of Howard et al. (US 2023/0267399 A1) (hereinafter Howard)
With respect to claim 8, Russo/Kukreja/Ittiachen/Martin discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. The combination of Russo, Kukreja, Ittiachen, and Martin does not explicitly disclose, however Howard teaches:
Wherein providing an interface is achieved by providing information related to the score or ranking on a website (See at least paragraphs 26, 27, 45, and 46 which describe providing a website that displays drivers’ scores and rankings based on their driving behavior, wherein a driver can view themselves against other drivers on the website).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, wherein the information is used to assign an aggression rating to the driver, and an energy rating, wherein the ratings are used to generate a score for the driver and is provided to drivers to view of Russo, with the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, such as braking and accelerating magnitudes, wherein this information is used to calculate an energy use rating for the driver, which is used to score the driver based on behavior of Kukreja, with the system and method of determining driving behavior scores based on vehicle acceleration, braking, turning, and speed, and providing feedback to the driver in real-time based on the rating exceeding a threshold, and wherein the feedback is provided as a text message or call of Ittiachen, with the system and method of determining a driver score based on acceleration, braking, lateral acceleration, and vehicle speed compared to posted speed limits of Martin, with the system and method of providing a website that displays drivers’ scores and rankings based on their driving behavior, wherein a driver can view themselves against other drivers on the website of Howard. By utilizing a website to display ranking and score information to drivers, a managing system would increase access to the information and services provided, thus predictably increasing the likelihood that they utilize the information to drive in a more favorable fashion.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russo, in view of Kukreja, and further in view of Ittiachen.
With respect to claim 11, Russo teaches:
One or more processors; a memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and are configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: Determining an aggression rating associated with current use of a vehicle (See at least paragraphs 3, 28, 39, 42, 43, and 59 which describe determining aggression metrics for a driver of a vehicle based on their driving behavior, including braking, accelerating speeding, and lateral maneuvering).
Determining an energy use rating as a function; Determining at least one score or ranking based on one or both of the aggression rating and the energy use rating (See at least paragraphs 3, 4, 27, 28, 42, 43, and 44 which describe determining a driving ratings of a user based on their driving behavior and vehicle usage, and using the aggression metrics and ratings to determine driver score for the user).
Providing an interface by which multiple drivers can view said at least one score or ranking, or information relating thereto (See at least paragraph 4, 27, 43, and 73-76 which describe providing an interface that allows drivers to view their driving scores against other drivers’ scores).
Russo discloses all of the claim 11 as stated above. Russo does not explicitly disclose the following, however Kukreja teaches:
Determining an energy use rating as a function of the aggression rating over a period of time (See at least column 2 line 17-54, column 3 lines 13-22, column 6 lines 16-36, and column 8 line 27 through column 9 line 3 which describe collecting driving behavior information about a driver, such as braking and accelerating magnitudes, wherein this information is used to calculate an energy use rating for the driver, which is used to score the driver based on behavior).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, wherein the information is used to assign an aggression rating to the driver, and an energy rating, wherein the ratings are used to generate a score for the driver and is provided to drivers to view of Russo, with the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, such as braking and accelerating magnitudes, wherein this information is used to calculate an energy use rating for the driver, which is used to score the driver based on behavior of Kukreja. By calculating an energy rating of a driver based on the driving behavior, such as their aggressive driving, and using this to score the driver, a managing system will predictably be able to score drivers such that they receive higher scores/ratings for driving safely and efficiently, thus encouraging safer driving.
The combination of Russo and Kukreja discloses all of the claim 11 as stated above. Russo and Kukreja do not explicitly disclose the following, however Ittiachen teaches:
Determining an aggression rating associated with multiple dynamic parameters monitored during current use of a vehicle (See at least paragraphs 18 and 27 which describe calculating driver behavior score based on collected driving metrics, including acceleration, braking, and steering wheel info, and wherein the metrics include roll/yaw/pitch angle/rate, lateral and longitudinal velocity and acceleration, tire slips and slip rates, the amount of fuel and air entering engines, braking applications, and steering wheel turning).
Determining that the aggression rating exceeds a feedback threshold and providing feedback to a driver of the vehicle where the feedback is provided within the vehicle and at the time of the aggression rating determination that resulted in the feedback being provided, wherein the feedback threshold is predetermined relative to a baseline aggression rating, and wherein the feedback is one or more of a text message on a display in the vehicle, an audible message or signal or tactile feedback (See at least paragraphs 18, 20, and 21 which describe determining a driving behavior exceeds a feedback threshold and providing feedback to the driver in real-time, wherein the threshold is relative to a baseline rating, and the feedback is provided in the vehicle dashboard, a call, or a text message).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, wherein the information is used to assign an aggression rating to the driver, and an energy rating, wherein the ratings are used to generate a score for the driver and is provided to drivers to view of Russo, with the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, such as braking and accelerating magnitudes, wherein this information is used to calculate an energy use rating for the driver, which is used to score the driver based on behavior of Kukreja, with the system and method of determining driving behavior scores based on vehicle acceleration, braking, turning, and speed, and providing feedback to the driver in real-time based on the rating exceeding a threshold, and wherein the feedback is provided as a text message or call of Ittiachen. By using multiple metrics to calculate a driver rating, a system will predictably be able to identify drivers that are safer drivers, and thus present such drivers with positive feedback when needed, and identify that are less safe drivers, and thus present such drivers negative feedback when needed.
With respect to claim 12, Russo/Kukreja/Ittiachen discloses all of the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. In addition, Russo teaches:
Wherein at least one of the one or more processors is in the vehicle and is used to determine one or both of the aggression rating and the energy use rating (See at least paragraphs 3, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 52, and 53 which describe using sensors of a vehicle or user device to collect information regarding user driving behavior (e.g. braking, acceleration, maneuvering, speeding), wherein the vehicle sensors and device are in the vehicle and used to determine the ratings of the driver).
With respect to claim 13, Russo/Kukreja/Ittiachen discloses all of the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. In addition, Russo teaches:
Which includes a backend portion with one or more processors and memory, and wherein each of multiple vehicles provide either at least one score or ranking to the backend portion, or each of multiple vehicles provide one or both of an aggression rating and an energy use rating to the backend portion and the backend portion is configured to determine the at least one score or ranking for each of the multiple vehicles (See at least paragraphs 3, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 42-44, 52, 53, 57, 78, and 79 which describe using sensors of a vehicle or user device to collect information regarding user driving behavior (e.g. braking, acceleration, maneuvering, speeding), wherein the information is used by a server to calculate scores for drivers of multiple vehicles).
With respect to claim 14, Russo/Kukreja/Ittiachen discloses all of the limitations of claims 11 and 13 as stated above. In addition, Russo teaches:
Wherein the backend portion provides a relative ranking of each vehicle or driver of a vehicle compared to the other of the multiple vehicles (See at least paragraph 4, 27, 43, and 73-76 which describe providing an interface that allows drivers to view their driving scores against other drivers’ scores).
With respect to claim 15, Russo/Kukreja/Ittiachen discloses all of the limitations of claims 11 and 13 as stated above. In addition, Russo teaches:
Wherein the backend portion determines an award earned by the driver (See at least paragraphs 4, 6, 29, 39, 65, 66, and 67 which describe determining benefits earned by the driver based on their driving score).
With respect to claim 16, Russo/Kukreja/Ittiachen discloses all of the limitations of claims 11, 13, and 15 as stated above. In addition, Russo teaches:
Wherein the award is based upon the driver exceeding one or more thresholds or based upon the relative ranking of the driver compared to multiple drivers (See at least paragraphs 4, 6, 29, 39, 65, 66, and 67 which describe determining benefits earned by the driver based on their driving score, wherein the threshold for qualifying includes being scores exceeding threshold).
With respect to claim 17, Russo/Kukreja/Ittiachen discloses all of the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. In addition, Russo teaches:
Wherein the aggression rating is determined as a function of at least a first acceleration threshold that is associated with an increasing vehicle speed, and wherein acceleration causing increasing vehicle speed is sensed by the one or more accelerometers of the vehicle (See at least paragraphs 3, 28, 39, 42, 43, and 59 which describe determining aggression metrics for a driver of a vehicle based on their driving behavior, including braking, accelerating speeding, and lateral maneuvering, and wherein sensors such as an accelerometer collect the driving behavior).
Russo discloses all of the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Russo does not explicitly disclose the following, however Ittiachen teaches:
Wherein the aggression rating is determined as a function of at least a first acceleration threshold that is associated with an increasing vehicle speed and a second acceleration threshold that is associated with decreasing vehicle speed and a third acceleration threshold that is associated with a lateral acceleration, and wherein the first acceleration, the second acceleration and the third acceleration are sensed by the one or more accelerometers of the vehicle (See at least paragraphs 18 and 27 which describe calculating driver behavior score based on collected driving metrics, including acceleration, braking, and steering wheel info, and wherein the metrics include roll/yaw/pitch angle/rate, lateral and longitudinal velocity and acceleration, tire slips and slip rates, the amount of fuel and air entering engines, braking applications, and steering wheel turning, and wherein the metrics are collected form sensors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, wherein the information is used to assign an aggression rating to the driver, and an energy rating, wherein the ratings are used to generate a score for the driver and is provided to drivers to view of Russo, with the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, such as braking and accelerating magnitudes, wherein this information is used to calculate an energy use rating for the driver, which is used to score the driver based on behavior of Kukreja, with the system and method of determining driving behavior scores based on vehicle acceleration, braking, turning, and speed, and providing feedback to the driver in real-time based on the rating exceeding a threshold, and wherein the feedback is provided as a text message or call of Ittiachen. By using multiple metrics to calculate a driver rating, a system will predictably be able to identify drivers that are safer drivers, and thus present such drivers with positive feedback when needed, and identify that are less safe drivers, and thus present such drivers negative feedback when needed.
Claims 18 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russo, Kukreja, and Ittiachen as applied to claim 11 as stated above, and further in view of Martin.
With respect to claim 18, Russo/Kukreja/Ittiachen discloses all of the limitations of claims 11 and 17 as stated above. The combination of Russo, Kukreja, and Ittiachen does not explicitly disclose, however Martin teaches:
Wherein the aggression rating is determined as a function of a determined traffic level on the road on which the vehicle is traveling and a vehicle speed compared to a speed limit of a road on which the vehicle is traveling (See at least paragraphs 10-12, 15, 26, 28, 34, and 97-103 which describe determining a driver score based on acceleration, braking, lateral acceleration, and vehicle speed compared to posted speed limits. In addition, see at least paragraphs 10-12, 15, and 23 which describe determining driver ratings based on the traffic on the road, including the distance of the vehicle to other vehicles or objects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, wherein the information is used to assign an aggression rating to the driver, and an energy rating, wherein the ratings are used to generate a score for the driver and is provided to drivers to view of Russo, with the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, such as braking and accelerating magnitudes, wherein this information is used to calculate an energy use rating for the driver, which is used to score the driver based on behavior of Kukreja, with the system and method of determining driving behavior scores based on vehicle acceleration, braking, turning, and speed, and providing feedback to the driver in real-time based on the rating exceeding a threshold, and wherein the feedback is provided as a text message or call of Ittiachen, with the system and method of determining a driver score based on acceleration, braking, lateral acceleration, vehicle speed compared to posted speed limits, and traffic level of Martin. By accounting for the distance between the driver’s vehicle and other vehicles or objects, a driver rating system will predictably be able to determine if a user is being aggressive while driving close to other vehicles, which would increase the risk of driving based accidents, and thus ensure that the driver rating reflects the driver’s true aggressiveness. In addition, by accounting for multiple accelerations and a vehicles speed compared to posted speed limit, driver rating system will predictably be able to determine how safe a driver is, compared to the rules and regulations of a road, thus ensuring that unsafe drivers are identified and can be alerted for their practices.
With respect to claim 19, Russo/Kukreja/Ittiachen/Martin discloses all of the limitations of claims 11, 17, and 18 as stated above. In addition, Martin teaches:
Wherein the aggression rating is determined as a function of at least a following distance of the vehicle to a different vehicle that is ahead of the vehicle on the road and a following distance threshold that is set as a function of the vehicle speed (See at least paragraphs 10-12, 15, and 23 which describe determining driver ratings based on the following distance from other vehicles, wherein the distance is based on the speed travelled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, wherein the information is used to assign an aggression rating to the driver, and an energy rating, wherein the ratings are used to generate a score for the driver and is provided to drivers to view of Russo, with the system and method of collecting driving behavior information about a driver, such as braking and accelerating magnitudes, wherein this information is used to calculate an energy use rating for the driver, which is used to score the driver based on behavior of Kukreja, with the system and method of determining driving behavior scores based on vehicle acceleration, braking, turning, and speed, and providing feedback to the driver in real-time based on the rating exceeding a threshold, and wherein the feedback is provided as a text message or call of Ittiachen, with the system and method of determining a driver score based on acceleration, braking, lateral acceleration, vehicle speed compared to posted speed limits, and traffic level of Martin. By accounting for the distance between the driver’s vehicle and other vehicles or objects, a driver rating system will predictably be able to determine if a user is being aggressive while driving close to other vehicles, which would increase the risk of driving based accidents, and thus ensure that the driver rating reflects the driver’s true aggressiveness.
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL P HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)-270-1833. 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.
Michael Harrington
Primary Patent Examiner
9 March 2026
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628