DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments submitted on 31 July 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 Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-21, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong One because “Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's characterization of the claims as merely reciting certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes overgeneralizes the claims and does not account for the claims as a whole. The independent claims are not directed merely to organizing personnel, mitigating risk in the abstract, or applying a set of human decision rules. Rather, the claims recite a specific route-planning system and process that uses traffic data and collision-event data to identify collision-event road segments, determine hazard scores for those road segments based on both collision-event count and collision-event severity scores, classify hazardous zones by aggregating collision types associated with vehicle collision events in the hazardous zone, determine operator-specific response costs using those derived hazardous-zone values and operator safety scores, and generate a route for an operator selected based on the response cost” (Remarks pg. 11). Examiner disagrees. First, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities because activities are recited that represent at least one of the organizing human activities enumerated subgroupings identified in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, determining a response cost based on operational cost and safety cost… represent fundamental economic principles or practices; 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…, identifying an operator… represent mitigating risks; 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…, identifying an operator…, generating a route between the operator and the location… represent managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people; and 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, identifying an operator…, generating a route between the operator and the location represent following rules or instructions. Second, each of the activities argued in the process to “use[] traffic data and collision-event data to identify collision-event road segments, determine hazard scores for those road segments based on both collision-event count and collision-event severity scores, classify hazardous zones by aggregating collision types associated with vehicle collision events in the hazardous zone, determine operator-specific response costs using those derived hazardous-zone values and operator safety scores, and generate a route for an operator selected based on the response cost” represent managing personal behavior, since these are all activities that a person can do. The claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities in Step 2A Prong One, and this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong One because “The rejection also states that the claimed operations may be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The claims do not merely require a person to look at information and make an ordinary judgment. The claims recite route-planning data-processing operations in which collision-event information for road segments is processed to produce hazard scores and hazardous-zone classifications, those derived values are incorporated into safety costs for respective operators, response costs are determined for multiple available operators, and the route is generated by identifying an operator having a selected response cost and generating a route between that operator and the service-request location. Treating such operations as no more than mental observation or manual judgment abstracts away the recited collision-derived hazard scoring, aggregation-based hazardous-zone classification, operator-specific response-cost computation, and route generation requirements” (Remarks pg. 11-12). Examiner disagrees. First, the claims recite mental processes because concepts are recited that represent at least one of the mental processes enumerated subgroupings identified in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, determining whether hazardous zones are present… represents observation; 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… represent evaluation; and 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…, identifying a most common collision type…, determining a response cost based on operational cost and safety cost…, generating a route to the location…, identifying an operator…, generating a route between the operator and the location… represent judgment. Second, each of the processes argued regarding “collision-derived hazard scoring, aggregation-based hazardous-zone classification, operator-specific response-cost computation, and route generation” (i.e. determining for each identified road segment a hazard score…, classifying each hazardous zone…, aggregating collision types…, determining a response cost…, generating a route / route between…) represent mental processes, since each of these could be performed in the human mind, or in the mind with pen / pencil and paper. The claims recite mental processes in Step 2A Prong One, and this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two because “Even assuming, solely for purposes of argument, that the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. As described in the original specification, an object of the disclosed systems and methods is to provide route planning and optimization capable of reducing the risk of traffic accidents, collisions, and crashes by taking safety factors into account (see, e.g., paragraph [0036] of the originally filed application). The presently claimed invention aims to implement that route-planning improvement through a concrete sequence of operations tied to road-segment collision data, hazardous-zone scoring and classification, operator-specific safety cost, response cost, selected-operator identification, and route generation” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. First, the claims do not provide an improvement to a technical field sufficient for eligibility, because the technical features in the claims only (1) implement a judicial exception with a general-purpose computer (e.g. processor, computer readable medium), and (2) add high-level pre-solution / extra-solution activities that are no more than using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive, store, or transmit data) which is not a practical application or significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). Second, the argued alleged improvement of “route-planning improvement through a concrete sequence of operations tied to road-segment collision data, hazardous-zone scoring and classification, operator-specific safety cost, response cost, selected-operator identification, and route generation” is all part of the judicial exception. The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement (per MPEP 2106.05(a) citing Diamond v. Diehr (1981)). Beyond the judicial exception limitations, the claimed features of data storage (claim 1), a processor in communication with the data storage (claim 1), and receiving data (claims 11, 21) are claimed at such a high level of detail these represent insignificant extra-solution activities and using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive, store, transmit data), which do not provide a practical application per MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(g). Viewing the claim limitations in combination does not elevate any of these additional elements more than viewing them individually. Hence, the technical details and additional elements provided in the claims do not provide a technical improvement that demonstrates a practical application. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two because “the presently claimed systems and methods do not merely store, receive, or transmit data for later human review. Nor do the presently claimed systems and methods merely calculate a cost and display a result. Instead, the claimed system and methods use the derived collision-event and hazardous-zone information to determine a safety cost for each operator, use the safety cost together with operational cost to determine response costs for multiple available operators, identify an operator having a selected response cost, and generate a route between that operator and the location of the service request. This use of the response cost to select the operator-route pairing and generate the route imposes a meaningful limitation on the alleged abstract idea and applies the claimed data processing to the technological field of route planning and optimization” (Remarks pg. 12-13). Examiner disagrees. First, in the Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the claims (1) implement a judicial exception with a general-purpose computer (e.g. processor, computer readable medium), and (2) add high-level pre-solution / extra-solution activities that are no more than using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive, store, or transmit data), neither of which provide a practical application or significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). 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. Second, the limitation of “identifying an operator having a selected response cost associated therewith that is less than a predetermined threshold, a lower response cost than the response cost associated with each other operator, or a combination thereof” associated with the argued ‘use of the response cost to select the operator-route pairing and generate the route’ does not impose a meaningful limitation on the abstract idea because (1) it is part of the judicial exception (this step represents both certain methods of organizing human activities: managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions; and mental processes: judgment), and (2) the only technical feature is that it is implemented by ‘at least one processor’, which is no more than ‘applying’ a judicial exception on a generic computer and not a practical application. Hence, this limitation does not provide a meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea / judicial exception that is a practical application. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two because “This is consistent with the specification, which describes that a hazard score may indicate how hazardous a particular road segment is and may be useful for route planning or optimizing when multiple hazardous zones are present between the location of an operator and the service-request location, for example so that more hazardous areas may be avoided over less hazardous areas (see paragraph [0092] of the originally filed application). The specification further describes generating a route for an operator having a selected response cost and, in related embodiments, optimizing a route based on safety cost, including adjusting the route to avoid one or more hazardous zones to lower the safety cost associated with the operator (see paragraphs [0107] and [0108] of the originally filed application). Thus, the claims do not merely link an abstract idea to a generic computer environment. The claims apply a particular collision-informed, operator-specific route-planning process to generate a route based on response costs determined for multiple available operators” (Remarks pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. The claims implement a judicial exception with a general-purpose computer (e.g. processor, computer readable medium), and add high-level pre-solution / extra-solution activities that are no more than using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive, store, or transmit data), neither of which provide a practical application or significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, the computer environment associated with the claims does not provide a technical solution that is a practical application. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible in Step 2B because “Applicant further submits that the combination of particular recited operations provides significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. The rejection analyzes the processor, data storage, receiving, communicating, and storing aspects as generic computer functions, but the claims are not directed merely to those components in isolation. The relevant combination of operations requires identifying multiple available operators, identifying collision-event road segments between operator and service-request locations, determining hazard scores based on collision-event counts and severity scores, classifying hazardous zones using aggregated collision types, determining response costs for the respective operators based on both operational and safety costs, identifying an operator having a selected response cost, and generating the route for that selected operator. The recited operations are not generic instructions to ‘apply’ a business rule on a computer. It is a specific route-planning process that uses derived road-segment hazard information and hazardous-zone classifications to determine operator-specific safety costs and response costs, and then uses those response costs to generate a route for a selected operator. Considered as a whole, the claims recite a particular application of collision-derived traffic data and operator safety information to route planning and optimization, rather than conventional data receipt, storage, or transmission alone” (Remarks pg. 14). Examiner disagrees. First, the additional elements are 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 solution activities (storing data, transmitting data, data gathering). Second, the additional elements are also routine, well-understood, and conventional activities previously known in the industry and specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, which is not significantly more, per MPEP 2106.05(d). For example, the activity of storing data (claim 1) is 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). The activity of communication (claim 1) is 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). The activity of receiving data (claims 11 and 21) is 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). Both individually and in combination with the limitations, these additional elements do not provide significantly more, only providing an implementation using a generic / general-purpose computer and using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive information, to store information, to transmit information). See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims do not provide significantly more in Step 2B. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-21, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive
Applicant argues “the independent claims now specify that generating the route involves identifying an operator having a selected response cost associated therewith, where the selected response cost is less than a predetermined threshold, lower than the response cost associated with each other operator, or a combination thereof, and generating a route between the operator having the selected response cost associated therewith and the location of each of the one or more service requests… The cited combination of references does not disclose, describe, or suggest the amended route-generation limitation” (Remarks pg. 15). Examiner disagrees. These amended limitations are taught by Hayes. First, “identifying an operator having a selected response cost associated therewith that is less than a predetermined threshold, a lower response cost than the response cost associated with each other operator, or a combination thereof” is taught by Hayes Fig 7H, ¶[0055-56], ¶[0103], ¶[0108], ¶[0117], claims 1-4 detailing the application recommending a particular driver for a particular route with a total risk score (presenting risk as a dollar amount, per Fig 7H, ¶[0030], ¶[0063], ¶[0112]), and the risk score of the route is compared to predetermined threshold to activate or deactivate a feature of the vehicle when the risk is either above or below the threshold, e.g. enabling autonomous driving when risk is below a certain level by giving the option to the driver. Second, “generating a route between the operator having the selected response cost associated therewith and the location of each of the one or more service requests” is taught by Hayes Fig 7C, Fig 7H, ¶[0027], ¶[0083], ¶[0095], ¶[0103] detailing generating a recommended route 1 from start location A to end location B with a selected operator and risk score (presenting risk as a dollar amount, i.e. response cost), the starting location may be the location of the vehicle (i.e. operator) and the end location may be received from the fleet management system, i.e. service request location. Thus, the art on record (Hayes) teaches these new limitation amendments. This argument is not persuasive.
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 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 by: identifying an operator having a selected response cost associated therewith that is less than a predetermined threshold, a lower response cost than the response cost associated with each other operator, or a combination thereof and; generating a route between the operator having the selected response cost associated therewith and the location of each of the one or more service requests. 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 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 by: identifying an operator having a selected response cost associated therewith that is less than a predetermined threshold, a lower response cost than the response cost associated with each other operator, or a combination thereof and; generating a route between the operator having the selected response cost associated therewith and the location of each of the one or more service requests 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…, identifying an operator…; 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…, identifying an operator…, generating a route between the operator and 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, identifying an operator…, generating a route between the operator and 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 by: identifying an operator having a selected response cost associated therewith that is less than a predetermined threshold, a lower response cost than the response cost associated with each other operator, or a combination thereof and; generating a route between the operator having the selected response cost associated therewith and the location of each of the one or more service requests as drafted are a process that, under 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 steps 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, evaluating collision types to judge a most common collision type for the hazardous zone, and evaluating operator response costs and thresholds to judge an operator; 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, and judging a route between an operator and service request location. 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 describe 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…, identifying an operator…, generating a route between the operator and 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 as 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 one 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 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 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 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 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).
by: identifying an operator having a selected response cost associated therewith that is less than a predetermined threshold, a lower response cost than the response cost associated with each other operator, or a combination thereof (Hayes Fig 7H, ¶[0055-56], ¶[0103], ¶[0108], ¶[0117], claims 1-4 details the application recommending a particular driver for a particular route with a total risk score (presenting risk as a dollar amount, per Fig 7H, ¶[0030], ¶[0063], ¶[0112]), and the risk score of the route is compared to predetermined threshold to activate or deactivate a feature of the vehicle when the risk is either above or below the threshold, e.g. enabling autonomous driving when risk is below a certain level by giving the option to the driver) and;
generating a route between the operator having the selected response cost associated therewith and the location of each of the one or more service requests (Hayes Fig 7C, Fig 7H, ¶[0027], ¶[0083], ¶[0095], ¶[0103] details generating a recommended route 1 from start location A to end location B with a selected operator and risk score (presenting risk as a dollar amount), the starting location may be the location of the vehicle and the end location may be received from the fleet management system, i.e. service request location).
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 by: identifying an operator having a selected response cost associated therewith that is less than a predetermined threshold, a lower response cost than the response cost associated with each other operator, or a combination thereof and; generating a route between the operator having the selected response cost associated therewith and the location of each of the one or more service requests 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]).
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 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 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 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 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 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-7H, ¶[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 and driver that is most preferred / recommended (e.g. the route in Fig 7F is recommended over Fig 7G with the lowest risk amount cost and insurance cost), and Fig 7H, ¶[0108] details updating a route risk profile (that includes risk amount cost) based on the driver for a trip which can be changed, i.e. response costs associated with each of the operators; 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).
by: identifying an operator having a selected response cost associated therewith that is less than a predetermined threshold, a lower response cost than the response cost associated with each other operator, or a combination thereof (Hayes Fig 7H, ¶[0055-56], ¶[0103], ¶[0108], ¶[0117], claims 1-4 details the application recommending a particular driver for a particular route with a total risk score (presenting risk as a dollar amount, per Fig 7H, ¶[0030], ¶[0063], ¶[0112]), and the risk score of the route is compared to predetermined threshold to activate or deactivate a feature of the vehicle when the risk is either above or below the threshold, e.g. enabling autonomous driving when risk is below a certain level by giving the option to the driver) and;
generating a route between the operator having the selected response cost associated therewith and the location of each of the one or more service requests (Hayes Fig 7C, Fig 7H, ¶[0027], ¶[0083], ¶[0095], ¶[0103] details generating a recommended route 1 from start location A to end location B with a selected operator and risk score (presenting risk as a dollar amount), the starting location may be the location of the vehicle and the end location may be received from the fleet management system, i.e. service request location).
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 by: identifying an operator having a selected response cost associated therewith that is less than a predetermined threshold, a lower response cost than the response cost associated with each other operator, or a combination thereof; and generating a route between the operator having the selected response cost associated therewith and the location of each of the one or more service requests 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]).
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.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US patent application publication 2016/0232475 A1 to Kuehnle et al. details a system and method for rating drivers, calculating a total safety cost for each driver along segments of a route to then assign the drivers to the routes (Kuehnle ¶[0041]).
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 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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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