DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response, amendments, and request for consideration submitted on 13 April 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 11, and 21 have been amended.
Claims 3-4, and 13-14 are cancelled.
Claims 2, 5-10, 12, and 15-20 are original / previously presented.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 4 and 14, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-21 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “the amended independent claims do not merely recite an aspirational result, nor do they merely instruct a generic computer to perform conventional route planning. Rather, the amended independent claims recite a specific processor-implemented sequence that derives hazard metrics and hazard-zone classifications from collision-event data and uses those derived values in computing a response cost that drives route generation” (Remarks pg. 11). Examiner disagrees. The claims are directed to a judicial exception (certain methods of organizing human activities: subgroupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, mitigating risk, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions; and mental processes: subgroupings of observation, evaluation, judgment) recited at a high level of detail implemented by a generic / general purpose computer (e.g. processor). The claimed steps of identifying operators available…, determining whether hazardous zones are present…, identifying any road segments between the locations…, determining for each identified road segment a hazard score…, classifying each hazardous zone by aggregating collision types…, identifying a most common collision type…, determining a response cost based on operational cost and safety cost…, generating a route to the location… each represent personal behaviors performed by a person which encompasses activity of a single person (i.e. managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions), demonstrating that they are certain methods of organizing human activities. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(II). The claimed steps of identifying operators available…, determining whether hazardous zones are present…, identifying any road segments between the locations…, determining for each identified road segment a hazard score…, classifying each hazardous zone by aggregating collision types…, identifying a most common collision type…, determining a response cost based on operational cost and safety cost…, generating a route to the location… each could be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper and represent observation, evaluation and judgment, demonstrating that these are mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). This is not a ‘specific processor-implemented’ sequence that derives hazard metrics and hazard-zone classifications from collision-event data and uses those derived values in computing a response cost that drives route generation that precludes the claims from reciting a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One because (1) deriving the hazard metrics and hazard zone classification and computing a response cost to generate the route is represented in the judicial exception in the limitations of determining whether hazardous zones are present…, identifying any road segments between the locations…, determining for each identified road segment a hazard score…, classifying each hazardous zone by aggregating collision types…, identifying a most common collision type…, determining a response cost based on operational cost and safety cost…, generating a route to the location…, and (2) there are no particular, technical details in these steps beyond the ‘apply it' implementation by a general / generic processor, which does not preclude these limitations from reciting certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “Examiner asserted that computer-implemented route planning is not a technical field and that the steps of identifying operators, identifying collision-event road segments, classifying hazardous zones, and generating routes are all part of the judicial exception, with only generic computer implementation beyond that. Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claims recite concrete collision event processing operations that are not fairly characterized as merely a business rule or a human organizational practice. Instead, the amended claims require deriving hazard scores and aggregated collision type classifications for hazardous zones from collision-event datasets and using those derived values in cost computation and routing. These are technical operations applied to transportation/traffic datasets as part of a route optimization system and are not merely improving a business process” (Remarks pg. 12) and “Applicant amended the independent claims to recite particular technical processing steps, including the hazard scoring and aggregation-based collision-type zone classification, as described herein” (Remarks pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. First, computer-implemented route planning is not a technical field, per se; rather it represents business activities otherwise performed by a person / people in the absence of technology (route planning), implemented on computers as a tool. Second, the recited collision event processing operations in the amendments (e.g. classifying each hazardous zone…, aggregating collision types…, identifying a most common collusion type…) are abstract operations and are not concrete (i.e. tangible) results beyond a judicial exception (certain methods of organizing human activities: mitigating risks, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions; mental processes: observation, evaluation, judgment). Third, deriving hazard scores and aggregated collision type classifications for hazardous zones from collision-event datasets and using those derived values in cost computation and routing (represented in the claims by the limitations of determining a hazard score…, classifying each hazardous zone…, aggregating collision types…, determining a response cost…, generating a route to the location…) is a business / commercial process and judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One (certain methods of organizing human activities: managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions; mental processes: observation, evaluation, judgment). Other than reciting implementation by a processor, nothing in these limitations preclude the steps from being performed by a person, or being performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, demonstrating that these are not technical operations that could provide an improvement to a technology or a technical field, since the technical features are no more than ‘applying’ the judicial exception on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “Examiner also asserted that the problem of conventional routing ignoring safety is a business decision and that the solution is part of the judicial exception. Applicant respectfully disagrees. As detailed in the specification of the originally filed application, the presently claimed invention seeks to improve route optimization technology by incorporating collision-derived hazardous zone attributes and operator safety scores into route planning and optimization (see, e.g., paragraphs [0002] to [0005] of the originally filed application). The amended independent claims now expressly recite the collision data processing operations that produce the hazardous zone parameters (i.e., hazard score and aggregated collision-type classification) that are then used in the response cost and route generation. The amended claim language therefore reflects a concrete technological solution, not merely a preference or instruction as to how a human should plan a route” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. First, the problem of route planning ignoring safety risks and hazardous roads for optimizing transportation routes is a business / commercial / entrepreneurial problem instead of a technological problem, noting that this is a business decision to ignore safety (and only concentrate on other variables such as time and cost) that is independent of any technology. Second, as noted above the amended limitations regarding collision data processing that produces hazardous zone parameters used in the response costs (e.g. classifying each hazardous zone…, aggregating collision types…, identifying a most common collusion type, determining a response cost…) are also part of the judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One (certain methods of organizing human activities: managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions; mental processes: observation, evaluation, judgment). Other than reciting implementation by a processor, nothing in these limitations preclude the steps from being performed by a person, or being performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, demonstrating that these are not technical operations that could provide an improvement to a technology or a technical field, since the technical features are no more than ‘applying’ the judicial exception on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The solution does not provide a ‘concrete’ (i.e. physical, tangible) result that is a practical application or significantly more (i.e. an effected transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, per MPEP 2106.05(c)). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “Examiner also asserted that nothing in the claims precludes performance by a person because the claims previously recited no details regarding the magnitude/complexity of data and ‘no particular or technical way of computing ... other than performing these steps by a processor’. The above-described amendments directly address this point by reciting specific computational steps: determining per-event severity scores, determining per-segment hazard scores based on event count and severity, and classifying hazardous zones by aggregating collision types associated with collision events in the zone. These are not mere "evaluation" or "judgment" operations; they define a concrete data processing pipeline that produces derived values used by the route planning system” (Remarks pg. 12-13). Examiner disagrees. There are no particular details in the claim language how to determine a hazard score and severity score (e.g. “determine, for each identified road segment, a hazard score based at least in part on a number of the one or more vehicle collision events that occurred on the road segment and a severity score associated with each of the one or more vehicle collision events”), or how to classify a hazardous zone (e.g. “classify each of hazardous zone by aggregating collision types associated with the one or more vehicle collision events of the hazardous zone to identify a most common collision type for the hazardous zone”) that would prevent these limitations from being performed by a person; or performed in the human mind or in the mind with the assistance of pen and paper. These limitations lack any details regarding magnitude, complexity, or technical computing processes. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 4 and 14, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-21 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection (Kislovskiy in view of Hayes in view of Cheng).
Priority
The application 18/646,134 filed on 25 April 2024 claims priority from US provisional application 63/463,682 filed on 3 May 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 13 May 2024 and 3 December 2024 have been acknowledged by the Office.
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 1-2, 5-12, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-21:
Step 1:
Claims 1-2, 5-10 recite a system; claims 11-12, 15-20 recite a method; and claim 21 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-21 recite an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 11, and 21 recite to: identify, using the operator data, a plurality of operators available to respond to each of the one or more service requests, each of the operators having a safety score associated therewith; determine whether any hazardous zones are present between a location of each of the operators and a location of each of the one or more the service requests based on the traffic data by identifying any road segments between the location of each of the operators and the location of each of the one or more service requests upon which one or more vehicle collision events have occurred; determine, for each identified road segment, a hazard score based at least in part on a number of the one or more vehicle collision events that occurred on the road segment and a severity score associated with each of the one or more vehicle collision events; classify each of hazardous zone by aggregating collision types associated with the one or more vehicle collision events of the hazardous zone to identify a most common collision type for the hazardous zone; determine, for each of the operators, a response cost based at least in part on: an operational cost corresponding to a predicted cost associated with a selected operator travelling to the location of each of the one or more service requests; and a safety cost corresponding to a predicted cost associated with the selected operator traversing one or more identified hazardous zones, and based at least in part on the safety score of the selected operator, the classification of the one or more identified hazardous zones, and the hazard score of each of the one or more identified hazardous zones; and generate a route to the location of each of the one or more service requests based on the response cost associated with each of the operators. The claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes.
First, the limitations to identify, using the operator data, a plurality of operators available to respond to each of the one or more service requests, each of the operators having a safety score associated therewith; determine whether any hazardous zones are present between a location of each of the operators and a location of each of the one or more the service requests based on the traffic data by identifying any road segments between the location of each of the operators and the location of each of the one or more service requests upon which one or more vehicle collision events have occurred; determine, for each identified road segment, a hazard score based at least in part on a number of the one or more vehicle collision events that occurred on the road segment and a severity score associated with each of the one or more vehicle collision events; classify each of hazardous zone by aggregating collision types associated with the one or more vehicle collision events of the hazardous zone to identify a most common collision type for the hazardous zone; determine, for each of the operators, a response cost based at least in part on: an operational cost corresponding to a predicted cost associated with a selected operator travelling to the location of each of the one or more service requests; and a safety cost corresponding to a predicted cost associated with the selected operator traversing one or more identified hazardous zone, and based at least in part on the safety score of the selected operator, the classification of the one or more identified hazardous zones, and the hazard score of each of the one or more identified hazardous zones; and generate a route to the location of each of the one or more service requests based on the response cost associated with each of the operators are certain methods of organizing human activities. These limitations represent the sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, mitigating risk, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. For example, fundamental economic principles or practices includes determining a response cost based on operational cost and safety cost…; mitigating risks includes identifying operators available…, determining whether hazardous zones are present…, identifying any road segments between the locations…, determining for each identified road segment a hazard score…, classifying each hazardous zone by aggregating collision types…, identifying a most common collision type…, determining a response cost based on operational cost and safety cost…, generating a route to the location…; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes identifying operators available…, determining whether hazardous zones are present…, identifying any road segments between the locations…, determining for each identified road segment a hazard score…, classifying each hazardous zone by aggregating collision types…, identifying a most common collision type…, determining a response cost based on operational cost and safety cost…, generating a route to the location…; and following rules or instructions includes identifying operators available…, determining whether hazardous zones are present…, identifying any road segments between the locations…, determining for each identified road segment a hazard score…, classifying each hazardous zone by aggregating collision types…, identifying a most common collision type…, determining a response cost based on operational cost and safety cost…, generating a route to the location. The presence of generic computer components such as at least one processor, and a non-transitory computer readable medium does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices, mitigating risk, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Second, the limitations of to identify, using the operator data, a plurality of operators available to respond to each of the one or more service requests, each of the operators having a safety score associated therewith; determine whether any hazardous zones are present between a location of each of the operators and a location of each of the one or more the service requests based on the traffic data by identifying any road segments between the location of each of the operators and the location of each of the one or more service requests upon which one or more vehicle collision events have occurred; determine, for each identified road segment, a hazard score based at least in part on a number of the one or more vehicle collision events that occurred on the road segment and a severity score associated with each of the one or more vehicle collision events; classify each of hazardous zone by aggregating collision types associated with the one or more vehicle collision events of the hazardous zone to identify a most common collision type for the hazardous zone; determine, for each of the operators, a response cost based at least in part on: an operational cost corresponding to a predicted cost associated with a selected operator travelling to the location of each of the one or more service requests; and a safety cost corresponding to a predicted cost associated with the selected operator traversing one or more identified hazardous zones, and based at least in part on the safety score of the selected operator, the classification of the one or more identified hazardous zones, and the hazard score of each of the one or more identified hazardous zones; and generate a route to the location of each of the one or more service requests based on the response cost associated with each of the operators as drafted is/are a process that, under its/their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (i.e. mental processes) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting at least one processor, and a non-transitory computer readable medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or in the mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, but for the generic / general purpose computer language, identifying in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually judging operators that are available, judging there are road segments between locations of operators and service requests in which vehicle collision events have occurred, and evaluating collision types to judge a most common collision type for the hazardous zone; determining in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually observing / judging whether there are hazardous zones between locations by evaluating traffic data; evaluating vehicle collision events and a severity score to judge a hazard score associated with each road segment; judging a response cost by evaluating operational cost and safety cost and operator safety score and classification of zones; classifying in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually evaluating collision type associated with each vehicle collision event for judging a hazardous zone; aggregating in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually observing / evaluating collision types associated with the collision events of the hazardous zone; and generating in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually evaluating response cost data and judging a route. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. an observation, evaluation, judgment) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-21 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. at least one processor, non-transitory computer readable medium) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing manual process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of (claim 1) storing and its step of at least one data storage operable to store operator data, traffic data, and data relating to one or more service requests is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for subsequent identifying and determining), and amounts to mere data storage, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the data storage (a general computer component) is only being used as a tool in the storing, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding storing more than using computers as a tool to perform in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to store data). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of (claim 1) communicating and its step of at least one processor in communication with the at least one data storage is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data), and amounts to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the processor and data storage (generic computer, general computer component) are only being used as a tool in the communicating, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding communicating more than using computers as a tool to perform in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data, to transmit data). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of (claims 11, 21) receiving and its step to receive operator data, traffic data, and data relating to one or more service requests is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving data for subsequent identifying and determining), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the processor (generic computer) is only being used as a tool in the receiving, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding receiving more than using computers as a tool to perform in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (processor, non-transitory computer readable medium); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (storing data, transmitting data, data gathering). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and non-transitory computer readable medium to perform identifying operators available…, determining whether hazardous zones are present…, identifying any road segments between the locations…, determining for each identified road segment a hazard score…, classifying each hazardous zone by aggregating collision types…, identifying a most common collision type…, determining a response cost based on operational cost and safety cost…, generating a route to the location… amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the (claim 1) storing are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for subsequent identifying and determining), and amount to mere storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. data storage) in these steps merely represents using a general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these storing steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data storage) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the (claim 1) communicating are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data for subsequent identifying / determining), and amount to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. processor, data storage) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these communicating steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the (claims 11, 21) receiving are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving data for subsequent identifying and determining), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. processor) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these receiving steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. receiving data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities / mental processes ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as data gathering / transmitting data / storing data. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to generate a route based on traffic, operator, and safety data), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1, 11, 21, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2, 5-10, 12, and 15-21. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claims 2 and 12: The limitation wherein the safety score associated with each of the operators is based on a normalized rate of occurrence of a safety exception event performed by an operator vehicle merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5 and 15: The limitation wherein the operational cost comprises predicted costs associated with vehicle operation, vehicle maintenance, operator hourly rates, operator overtime rates, or a combination thereof merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6 and 16: The limitation wherein each of the operators has associated therewith a safety score trend based on changes in the safety score associated therewith over a period of time merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7 and 17: The limitation wherein the safety cost is based at least in part on the safety score of the selected operator, a safety score trend associated with the selected operator, or a combination thereof, and a classification of each of the one or more identified hazardous zones, a hazard score of each of the one or more hazardous zones, or a combination thereof merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 8 and 18: The limitations wherein the at least one processor is operable to generate the route to the location of each of the one or more service requests based on the response cost associated with each of the operators by: generating an initial route between a location of an operator having a selected operational cost associated therewith and the location of each of the one or more service requests; and optimizing the initial route based on the safety cost associated with the operator are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mental processes (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the at least one processor is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 9 and 19: The limitation wherein the at least one processor is operable to optimize the initial route by adjusting the initial route to avoid one or more identified hazardous zones is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mental processes (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the at least one processor is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 10 and 20: The limitations wherein the at least one processor is operable to optimize the initial route by: ranking any identified hazardous zones based on a hazard score associated with each thereof; and adjusting the initial route based on the hazard score associated with each identified hazardous zone are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mental processes (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the at least one processor is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1, 11, 21, and the dependent claims 2, 5-10, 12, 15-20 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-21 are ineligible.
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 non-obviousness.
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, 5, 7-11, 15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) publication 2018/217526 A1 to Kislovskiy et al. (Item #1 in Foreign Patent Documents Section of IDS submitted on 3 December 2024) in view of US patent application publication 2020/0249697 A1 to Hayes et al. (Item #2 in US Patent Application Publication Section of IDS submitted on 3 December 2024) in view of US patent application publication 2023/0245560 A1 to Cheng et al.
Claim 1:
Kislovskiy, as shown, teaches the following:
A system for route planning, the system comprising:
at least one data storage operable to store operator data, traffic data, and data relating to one or more service requests (Kislovskiy Fig 2-3, ¶[0054], ¶[0083-85], ¶[0154] details a storage database that includes driver data and historical driving characteristics of the driver, how long the driver has been on duty; trip logs and historical event data regarding harmful events in the region (e.g. traffic accidents, collisions, road conditions, weather conditions, traffic conditions));
at least one processor in communication with the at least one data storage (Kislovskiy Fig 2-3, ¶[0043], ¶[0054-55] details one or more processor of the systems, and the on-demand transport management system are connected to the database through the network), the at least one processor operable to:
identify, using the operator data, a plurality of operators available to respond to each of the one or more service requests (Kislovskiy Fig 8, ¶[0074], ¶[0083-85], ¶[0129-130] details identifying a set of candidate vehicles to service the transportation request), each of the operators having a safety score associated therewith (Kislovskiy ¶[0085] details an individual risk value / individual risk score computed for each driver; and also a qualitative historical characteristic of the driver (e.g. aggressive, fast, slow gentle, normal));
With respect to the following:
determine whether any hazardous zones are present between a location of each of the operators and a location of each of the one or more the service requests based on the traffic data by identifying any road segments between the location of each of the operators and the location of each of the one or more service requests upon which one or more vehicle collision events have occurred;
Kislovskiy, as shown in Fig 8, ¶[0065], ¶[0130], ¶[0154], ¶[0157] details filtering through a candidate set of vehicles for the transport request including the aggregate risk value and estimated time to rendezvous with the requesting user (e.g. based on distance and traffic) and accounting for the time to destination based on factors as current traffic conditions, projected traffic conditions and distance; ¶[0032] details determining a risk quantity for any given path segment of a given region and identify the riskiest aggregate paths or path segments; suggesting but not explicitly stating determining whether any hazardous zones are present between a location of each of the operators and a location of each of the one or more the service requests based on the traffic data by identifying any road segments between the location of each of the operators and the location of each of the one or more service requests upon which one or more vehicle collision events have occurred. However, Hayes teaches this limitation determining a risk of each segment along the route based on factors including accidents / turns / weather / more risky intersections / traffic, and whether a segment is more risky at different times of the day including identifying historical number of historical accidents at a time of day on a particular route; and the route includes a start location as the vehicle location (i.e. location of the operator) and the end location is a destination that the user wish to go to in a series of destinations (e.g. a driver to pick up or deliver items at a number of locations on the way to the destination location) (i.e. a location of each of the one or more the service requests) (Hayes ¶[0027-36], ¶[0040-42], ¶[0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining whether any hazardous zones are present between a location of each of the operators and a location of each of the one or more the service requests based on the traffic data by identifying any road segments between the location of each of the operators and the location of each of the one or more service requests upon which one or more vehicle collision events have occurred as taught by Hayes with the teachings of Kislovskiy, with the motivation of improving “technological systems for guiding drivers to a destination” (Hayes ¶[0002]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining whether any hazardous zones are present between a location of each of the operators and a location of each of the one or more the service requests based on the traffic data as taught by Hayes in the system of Kislovskiy, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Kislovskiy (in view of Hayes) also teaches the following:
determine, for each identified road segment, a hazard score based at least in part on a number of the one or more vehicle collision events that occurred on the road segment (Kislovskiy Fig 11, ¶[0154-156] details identifying the harmful events (e.g. accidents, collisions) and their significance or consequence (severity score) and cluster operations to determine common behavior to localities to identify the locations where harmful events are typically occurring, and determining fractional harmful event values (i.e. hazard score) for each path segment (i.e. road segment) of the region for human-driven vehicles) and a severity score associated with each of the one or more vehicle collision events (Kislovskiy ¶[0154] details classifying harmful events on a sliding scale in terms of significance or consequence, such as multiple fatality events, single fatality events, serious injury events, or no-injury events);
With respect to the following:
classify each of hazardous zone by aggregating collision types associated with the one or more vehicle collision events of the hazardous zone to identify a most common collision type for the hazardous zone;
Kislovskiy, as shown in Fig 11, ¶[0154-156] details identifying the harmful events (e.g. accidents, collisions) and their significance or consequence such as multiple fatality / single fatality / serious injury / no-injury (i.e. collision type) and cluster operations to determine common behavior (i.e. aggregating) to localities (i.e. zones) to identify the locations where harmful events are typically occurring (i.e. hazardous zones), and determining fractional harmful event values for each path segment (i.e. classified hazardous zones) of the region for human-driven vehicles; but does not explicitly state that the classifying is to identify a most common collision type for the hazardous zone. However, Cheng teaches this limitation, first using data from detected vehicle events / accident database to determine locations that can be grouped into incident groups (where the area around an incident group is a zone around a risk location), ranking the risk associated with each incident group (i.e. classifying each hazardous zone), and risks are grouped and ranked together by crash cause (e.g. slowing traffic crash type, turn crash type, intersection crash type, train crash type, animal collision crash type) (i.e. collision types), and used to determine risky locations (i.e. classify hazardous zones by aggregating collision types of collision events of the hazardous zones) (Cheng ¶[0022-23]); and details crash clusters are identified along the road network using parameters including crash type and geographical location, using incident totals for crash clusters to become hotspots (i.e. hazardous zones), and the identifying key words of the most frequently occurring incident / crash hazard and the surrounding geographical context using the crash cluster table (i.e. identify a most common collision type for the hazardous zone) to generate alerts for the hotspot (Cheng ¶[0049-50], ¶[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to classify each of hazardous zone by aggregating collision types associated with the one or more vehicle collision events of the hazardous zone to identify a most common collision type for the hazardous zone as taught by Cheng with the teachings of Kislovskiy in view of Hayes, with the motivation of “location risk determination” and “creating a warning of risk to a driver” (Cheng Title, ¶[0002]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include classifying each of hazardous zone by aggregating collision types associated with the one or more vehicle collision events of the hazardous zone to identify a most common collision type for the hazardous zone as taught by Cheng in the system of Kislovskiy in view of Hayes, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Kislovskiy (in view of Hayes in view of Cheng) also teaches the following:
determine, for each of the operators, a response cost (Kislovskiy ¶[0166], ¶[0075], claim 117 details estimating the profitability / trip cost / revenue for each of the vehicles to respond to the requests based on the route; cost factors include expected usage cost (fuel costs, expected energy usage, on-board service features, network access), and profit deductions) based at least in part on:
an operational cost corresponding to a predicted cost associated with a selected operator travelling to the location of each of the one or more service requests (Kislovskiy ¶[0075] details the determined cost is based on an expected usage cost (e.g. fuel cost, power use cost) for the vehicles within a certain distance or time from the user’s (request) location; in further support of obviousness see also / alternatively Hayes Fig 7F-7G, ¶[0062], ¶[0078] details an amount of wear and tear on a vehicle, a fuel cost, a cost of overtime, and insurance cost and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable); and
Hayes (of Kislovskiy in view of Hayes in view of Cheng, applying that the route is for a transportation service request and the hazard score, per Kislovskiy above; and applying the classification of the hazardous zones, per Cheng above) also teaches the following:
a safety cost corresponding to a predicted cost associated with the selected operator traversing one or more identified hazardous zones, and based at least in part on the safety score of the selected operator, the classification of the one or more identified hazardous zones, and the hazard score of each of the one or more identified hazardous zones (Hayes Fig 7F-7G, ¶[0045], ¶[0048], ¶[0063], ¶[0100-103] details a risk cost associated with a driver traveling a route and one or more segments, safety percentages for the routes ranging from 50% safe which is below a safety threshold such as 80% (i.e. below the threshold is classification of an identified hazardous zone) vs. 95% safe (noting that the route percentage safe is a hazard score), the efficiency rating and traffic prediction, and their driver profile and safety score, with all the factors converted or measured in a dollar amount for the computed risk cost); and
generate a route to the location of each of the one or more service requests based on the response cost associated with each of the operators (Hayes Fig 7F-7G, ¶[0063-64], ¶[0101-102], ¶[0116-117] details generating routes to the destination based on the risk amount cost (safety cost) and insurance cost / fuel cost (operation cost), which are normalized costs and combined as a dollar amount to find the route that is most preferred / recommended (e.g. the route in Fig 7F is recommended over Fig 7G with the lowest risk cost and insurance cost); in further support of obviousness see also / alternatively Kislovskiy ¶[0033], ¶[0075-76] details providing an optimal route based on selecting the optimal vehicle based on the usage cost / fuel cost and trip risk values, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a safety cost corresponding to a predicted cost associated with the selected operator traversing one or more identified hazardous zones, and based at least in part on the safety score of the selected operator, the classification of the one or more identified hazardous zones, and the hazard score of each of the one or more identified hazardous zones; and generate a route to the location of each of the one or more service requests based on the response cost associated with each of the operators as taught by Hayes with the teachings of Kislovskiy (in view of Hayes in view of Cheng), with the motivation of improving “technological systems for guiding drivers to a destination” (Hayes ¶[0002]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a safety cost corresponding to a predicted cost associated with the selected operator traversing one or more identified hazardous zones, and based at least in part on the safety score of the selected operator, the classification of the one or more identified hazardous zones, and the hazard score of each of the one or more identified hazardous zones as taught by Hayes in the system of Kislovskiy (in view of Hayes in view of Cheng), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 5:
Kislovskiy in view of Hayes in view of Cheng, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Kislovskiy also teaches the following:
wherein the operational cost comprises predicted costs associated with vehicle operation, vehicle maintenance, operator hourly rates, operator overtime rates, or a combination thereof (Kislovskiy ¶[0075], ¶[0166] details vehicle operation usage costs (e.g. fuel or power use), and fare rate).
Claim 7:
Kislovskiy in view of Hayes in view of Cheng, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Hayes also teaches the following:
wherein the safety cost is based at least in part on the safety score of the selected operator, a safety score trend associated with the selected operator, or a combination thereof, and a classification of each of the one or more identified hazardous zones, a hazard score of each of the one or more hazardous zones, or a combination thereof (Hayes ¶[0045], ¶[0048], ¶[0063], ¶[0100] details the total risk of the route is based on risk factors including the driver profile and driver score / safety score, and the risk of the route may be represented as a dollar amount; and the risk may be determined based on individual segments and the risk of the route is the sum of risk of one or more of the segments, i.e. hazard score of each of the one or more hazardous zones; and safety percentages for the routes ranging from 50% safe which is below a safety threshold such as 80% (i.e. below the threshold is classification of an identified hazardous zone) vs. 95% safe (noting that the route percentage safe is a hazard score)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the safety cost is based at least in part on the safety score of the selected operator, a safety score trend associated with the selected operator, or a combination thereof, and a classification of each of the one or more identified hazardous zones, a hazard score of each of the one or more hazardous zones, or a combination thereof as taught by Hayes with the teachings of Kislovskiy (in view of Hayes in view of Cheng), with the motivation of improving “technological systems for guiding drivers to a destination” (Hayes ¶[0002]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the safety cost is based at least in part on the safety score of the selected operator, a safety score trend associated with the selected operator, or a combination thereof, and a classification of each of the one or more identified hazardous zones, a hazard score of each of the one or more hazardous zones, or a combination thereof as taught by Hayes in the system of Kislovskiy (in view of Hayes in view of Cheng), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 8:
Kislovskiy in view of Hayes in view of Cheng, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Hayes (of Kislovskiy in view of Hayes in view of Cheng, applying that the route is for a transportation service request, per Kislovskiy above) also teaches the following:
wherein the at least one processor is operable to generate the route to the location of each of the one or more service requests based on the response cost associated with each of the operators by:
generating an initial route between a location of an operator having a selected operational cost associated therewith and the location of each of the one or more service requests (Hayes Fig 5, ¶[0027-28], ¶[0063] details the system receiving the start and end locations and determining a route for the driver to follow as an initial route, and determining the amount of wear and tear on a vehicle and a fuel cost as a dollar amount to provide the a route recommendation); and
optimizing the initial route based on the safety cost associated with the operator (Hayes ¶[0064], ¶[0112], ¶[0127] details the system may use risk / cost of risk in determining the route recommendation and a route optimization, and the steps [in Hayes] as illustrated can be performed in any order).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include generating an initial route between a location of an operator having a selected operational cost associated therewith and the location of each of the one or more service requests; and optimizing the initial route based on the safety cost associated with the operator as taught by Hayes with the teachings of Kislovskiy (in view of Hayes in view of Cheng), with the motivation of improving “technological systems for guiding drivers to a destination” (Hayes ¶[0002]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include generating an initial route between a location of an operator having a selected operational cost associated therewith and the location of each of the one or more service requests; and optimizing the initial route based on the safety cost associated with the operator as taught by Hayes in the system of Kislovskiy (in view of Hayes in view of Cheng), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 9:
Kislovskiy in view of Hayes in view of Cheng, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 8. Kislovskiy also teaches the following:
wherein the at least one processor is operable to optimize the initial route by adjusting the initial route to avoid one or more identified hazardous zones (Kislovskiy Fig 7, ¶[0098-99] details monitoring the trip to dynamically determine risk over the trip remainder and current conditions, identify alternative routes for the driver / vehicle that are less risky, and transmit transport updates to re-route the driver; see also/alternatively Hayes ¶[0038] details avoiding busy or wide roads to increase safety for children crossing the road before getting off the bus, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable).
Claim 10:
Kislovskiy in view of Hayes in view of Cheng, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 8. Kislovskiy also teaches the following:
wherein the at least one processor is operable to optimize the initial route by:
ranking any identified hazardous zones based on a hazard score associated with each thereof (Kislovskiy ¶[0156-157] details calculating harmful event values per path segment, and identifying the riskiest aggregate paths or path segments for human driven vehicles and the safest aggregate paths or path segments for autonomous vehicles, i.e. hazard scores associated with zones); and
adjusting the initial route based on the hazard score associated with each identified hazardous zone (Kislovskiy ¶[0157] details path classification of safest and riskiest paths (hazard score) is dynamic in nature based on the current set of conditions, and is used to set the paths for vehicles to avoid; and per Fig 7, ¶[0098-99] a trip is monitored to dynamically determine risk over the trip remainder and current conditions, identifying alternative routes for the driver / vehicle that are less risky, and transmitting transport updates to re-route the driver, i.e. adjusting the initial route based on the hazard score).
Claim 11:
Kislovskiy, as shown, teaches the following:
A method for route planning, the method comprising operating at least one processor to:
receive operator data, traffic data, and data relating to one or more service requests (Kislovskiy Fig 2-3, ¶[0054], ¶[0074], ¶[0083-85], ¶[0154-155] details collecting and storing driver data and historical driving characteristics of the driver, how long the driver has been on duty; traffic data; and trip logs and historical event data regarding harmful events in the region (e.g. traffic accidents, collisions, road conditions, weather conditions, traffic conditions));
identify, using the operator data, a plurality of operators available to respond to each of the one or more service requests (Kislovskiy Fig 8, ¶[0074], ¶[0083-85], ¶[0129-130] details identifying a set of candidate vehicles to service the transportation request), each of the operators having a safety score associated therewith (Kislovskiy ¶[0085] details an individual risk value / individual risk score computed for each driver; and also a qualitative historical characteristic of the driver (e.g. aggressive, fast, slow gentle, normal));
With respect to the following:
determine whether any hazardous zones are present between a location of each of the operators and a location of each of the one or more the service requests based on the traffic data;
Kislovskiy, as shown in Fig 8, ¶[0065], ¶[0130], ¶[0154], ¶[0157] details filtering through a candidate set of vehicles for the transport request including the aggregate risk value and estimated time to rendezvous with the requesting user (e.g. based on distance and traffic) and accounting for the time to destination based on factors as current traffic conditions, projected traffic conditions and distance; ¶[0032] details determining a risk quantity for any given path segment of a given region and identify the riskiest aggregate paths or path segments; highly suggesting but not explicitly stating determining whether any hazardous zones are present between a location of each of the operators and a location of each of the one or more the service requests based on the traffic data. However, Hayes teaches this limitation determining a risk of each segment along the route based on factors including accidents / turns / weather / more risky intersections / traffic, and whether a segment is more risky at different times of the day; and the route includes a start location as the vehicle location (i.e. location of the operator) and the end location is a destination that the user wish to go to in a series of destinations (e.g. a driver to pick up or deliver items at a number of locations on the way to the destination location) (i.e. a location of each of the one or more the service requests) (Hayes ¶[0027-36], ¶[0040-41], ¶[0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining whether any hazardous zones are present between a location of each of the operators and a location of each of the one or more the service requests based on the traffic data as taught by Hayes with the teachings of Kislovskiy, with the motivation of improving “technological systems for guiding drivers to a destination” (Hayes ¶[0002]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining whether any hazardous zones are present between a location of each of the operators and a location of each of the one or more the service requests based on the traffic data as taught by Hayes in the system of Kislovskiy, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Kislovskiy (in view of Hayes) also teaches the following:
determine, for each identified road segment, a hazard score based at least in part on a number of the one or more vehicle collision events that occurred on the road segment (Kislovskiy Fig 11, ¶[0154-156] details identifying the harmful events (e.g. accidents, collisions) and their significance or consequence (severity score) and cluster operations to determine common behavior to localities to identify the locations where harmful events are typically occurring, and determining fractional harmful event values (i.e. hazard score) for each path segment (i.e. road segment) of the region for human-driven vehicles) and a severity score associated with each of the one or more vehicle collision events (Kislovskiy ¶[0154] details classifying harmful events on a sliding scale in terms of significance or consequence, such as multiple fatality events, single fatality events, serious injury events, or no-injury events);
With respect to the following:
classify each of hazardous zone by aggregating collision types associated with the one or more vehicle collision events of the hazardous zone to identify a most common collision type for the hazardous zone;
Kislovskiy, as shown in Fig 11, ¶[0154-156] details identifying the harmful events (e.g. accidents, collisions) and their significance or consequence such as multiple fatality / single fatality / serious injury / no-injury (i.e. collision type) and cluster operations to determine common behavior (i.e. aggregating) to localities (i.e. zones) to identify the locations where harmful events are typically occurring (i.e. hazardous zones), and determining fractional harmful event values for each path segment (i.e. classified hazardous zones) of the region for human-driven vehicles; but does not explicitly state that the classifying is to identify a most common collision type for the hazardous zone. However, Cheng teaches this limitation, first using data from detected vehicle events / accident database to determine locations that can be grouped into incident groups (where the area around an incident group is a zone around a risk location), ranking the risk associated with each incident group (i.e. classifying each hazardous zone), and risks are grouped and ranked together by crash cause (e.g. slowing traffic crash type, turn crash type, intersection crash type, train crash type, animal collision crash type) and used to determine risky locations (i.e. classify hazardous zones by aggregating collision types of collision events of the hazardous zones) (Cheng ¶[0022-23]); and details crash clusters are identified along the road network using parameters including crash type and geographical location, using incident totals for crash clusters to become hotspots (i.e. hazardous zones), and the identifying key words of the most frequently occurring incident / crash hazard and the surrounding geographical context using the crash cluster table (i.e. identify a most common collision type for the hazardous zone) to generate alerts for the hotspot (Cheng ¶[0049-50], ¶[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to classify each of hazardous zone by aggregating collision types associated with the one or more vehicle collision events of the hazardous zone to identify a most common collision type for the hazardous zone as taught by Cheng with the teachings of Kislovskiy in view of Hayes, with the motivation of “location risk determination” and “creating a warning of risk to a driver” (Cheng Title, ¶[0002]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include classifying each of hazardous zone by aggregating collision types associated with the one or more vehicle collision events of the hazardous zone to identify a most common collision type for the hazardous zone as taught by Cheng in the system of Kislovskiy in view of Hayes, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Kislovskiy (in view of Hayes in view of Cheng) also teaches the following:
determine, for each of the operators, a response cost (Kislovskiy ¶[0166], ¶[0075], claim 117 details estimating the profitability / trip cost / revenue for each of the vehicles to respond to the requests based on the route; cost factors include expected usage cost (fuel costs, expected energy usage, on-board service features, network access), and profit deductions) based at least in part on:
an operational cost corresponding to a predicted cost associated with a selected operator travelling to the location of each of the one or more service requests (Kislovskiy ¶[0075] details the determined cost is based on an expected usage cost (e.g. fuel cost, power use cost) for the vehicles within a certain distance or time from the user’s (request) location; in further support of obviousness see also / alternatively Hayes Fig 7F-7G, ¶[0062], ¶[0078] details an amount of wear and tear on a vehicle, a fuel cost, a cost of overtime, and insurance cost and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable); and
Hayes (of Kislovskiy in view of Hayes in view of Cheng, applying that the route is for a transportation service request and the hazard score, per Kislovskiy above; and applying the classification of the hazardous zones, per Cheng above) also teaches the following:
a safety cost corresponding to a predicted cost associated with the selected operator traversing one or more identified hazardous zones, and based at least in part on the safety score of the selected operator, the classification of the one or more identified hazardous zones, and the hazard score of each of the one or more identified hazardous zones (Hayes Fig 7F-7G, ¶[0045], ¶[0048], ¶[0063], ¶[0100-103] details a risk cost associated with a driver traveling a route and one or more segments, safety percentages for the routes ranging from 50% safe which is below a safety threshold such as 80% (i.e. below the threshold is classification of an identified hazardous zone) vs. 95% safe (noting that the route percentage safe is a hazard score), the efficiency rating and traffic prediction, and their driver profile and safety score, with all the factors converted or measured in a dollar amount for the computed risk cost); and
generate a route to the location of each of the one or more service requests based on the response cost associated with each of the operators (Hayes Fig 7F-7G, ¶[0063-64], ¶[0101-102], ¶[0116-117] details generating routes to the destination based on the risk amount cost (safety cost) and insurance cost / fuel cost (operation cost), which are normalized costs and combined as a dollar amount to find the route that is most preferred / recommended (e.g. the route in Fig 7F is recommended over Fig 7G with the lowest risk cost and insurance cost); in further support of obviousness see also / alternatively Kislovskiy ¶[0033], ¶[0075-76] details providing an optimal route based on selecting the optimal vehicle based on the usage cost / fuel cost and trip risk values, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a safety cost corresponding to a predicted cost associated with the selected operator traversing one or more identified hazardous zones, and based at least in part on the safety score of the selected operator, the classification of the one or more identified hazardous zones, and the hazard score of each of the one or more identified hazardous zones; and generate a route to the location of each of the one or more service requests based on the response cost associated with each of the operators as taught by Hayes with the teachings of Kislovskiy (in view of Hayes in view of Cheng), with the motivation of improving “technological systems for guiding drivers to a destination” (Hayes ¶[0002]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a safety cost corresponding to a predicted cost associated with the selected operator traversing one or more identified hazardous zones, and based at least in part on the safety score of the selected operator, the classification of the one or more identified hazardous zones, and the hazard score of each of the one or more identified hazardous zones as taught by Hayes in the system of Kislovskiy (in view of Hayes in view of Cheng), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 15:
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 5 and therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 5.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 7 and therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 7.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 8 and therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 8.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 9 and therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 9.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 10 and therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 10.
Claim 21:
Claim 21 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 11 and therefore claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 11.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) publication 2018/217526 A1 to Kislovskiy et al. in view of US patent application publication 2020/0249697 A1 to Hayes et al. in view of US patent application publication 2023/0245560 A1 to Cheng et al., as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US patent publication 10,311,749 B1 to Kypri et al.
Claim 2:
Kislovskiy in view of Hayes in view of Cheng, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein the safety score associated with each of the operators is based on a normalized rate of occurrence of a safety exception event performed by an operator vehicle.
Hayes, as shown in ¶[0045], ¶[0063] details the driver has a safety score that identifies whether a driver may be more risky vs. more of a defensive driver than other drivers, and the driver safety score is a risk factor (along with any other risk factor) that can be normalized to a standard unit, but does not explicitly state the safety score is based on a normalized rate of occurrence of a safety exception event performed by an operator vehicle. However, Kypri teaches this limitation, with the driver safety score based on compliance events and detected driving events that comprise a correlation between compliance events and detected driving events (e.g. a driver safety score would show an increased risk of collision probability in the event that the driver has a history of receiving vehicle inspection violations), i.e. the score is based on normalizing a rate of occurrence with a compliance event (Kypri col 2 ln 61 through col 3 ln 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the safety score associated with each of the operators is based on a normalized rate of occurrence of a safety exception event performed by an operator vehicle as taught by Kypri with the teachings of Kislovskiy in view of Hayes in view of Cheng, with the motivation to “identify unsafe drivers” (Kypri col 1 ln 19). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the safety score associated with each of the operators is based on a normalized rate of occurrence of a safety exception event performed by an operator vehicle as taught by Kypri in the system of Kislovskiy in view of Hayes in view of Cheng, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 12:
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2 and therefore claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 2.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) publication 2018/217526 A1 to Kislovskiy et al. in view of US patent application publication 2020/0249697 A1 to Hayes et al. in view of US patent application publication 2023/0245560 A1 to Cheng et al., as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2023/0146426 A1 to Sanchez.
Claim 6:
Kislovskiy in view of Hayes in view of Cheng, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein each of the operators has associated therewith a safety score trend based on changes in the safety score associated therewith over a period of time.
Kislovskiy, as shown in ¶[0085] details drivers have an individual risk score and that the value is based on how long the driver has been on-duty (i.e. a period of time), Hayes, as shown in ¶[0045] details a driver has a driver score / safety score; and Cheng, as shown in ¶[0045], claim 2 details a driver score / safety score; but Kislovskiy / Hayes / Cheng does not explicitly state a safety score trend based on changes in the safety score associated therewith over a period of time. However, Sanchez teaches this limitation, monitoring an operator score / safety score and determining a score trend for the vehicle operator based on comparing data from a first period of time to a second period of time (Sanchez ¶[0168]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include each of the operators has associated therewith a safety score trend based on changes in the safety score associated therewith over a period of time as taught by Sanchez with the teachings of Kislovskiy in view of Hayes in view of Cheng, with the motivation of “managing vehicle operator profiles” and to “improve profitability of insuring this particular vehicle operator” (Sanchez ¶[0022], ¶[0110]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include each of the operators has associated therewith a safety score trend based on changes in the safety score associated therewith over a period of time as taught by Sanchez in the system of Kislovskiy in view of Hayes in view of Cheng, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 16:
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 6 and therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights