DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is responsive to the application filed July 13th, 2024. Claims 1-26 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the limitation beginning “a sensor” recites “the motion” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “motion of a vehicle”;
the limitations beginning “said first computer subtracting” recites “the remainders” which lacks antecedent basis;
the limitation beginning “online computer server interface” contains a typographical error and should recite “online computer interface”;
the limitation beginning “said second computer having means to hold” recites “the fractional amount” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a fractional amount”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the limitation beginning “sharing” recites “the same account number” which lacks antecedent basis; and
the limitation beginning “said second computer having means” recites “the amount” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “an amount”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation states “online computer server interface” which is a typographical error and should recite “online computer interface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation recites "the travel times" which lacks antecedent basis and should recite "travel times". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation recites "the . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation states “online computer server interface” which is a typographical error and should recite “online computer interface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the limitation recites "the ; and
the limitation states “online computer server interface” which is a typographical error and should recite “online computer interface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitations state “online computer server interface” which is a typographical error and should recite “online computer interface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation recites "the . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation recites "the . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 requires that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention.” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing history and purpose of the written description requirement).
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Claim 1 recites the phrase “…said second computer having means to hold said funds of said first account in escrow.” Applicant’s specification discloses “….If 612 the driver withdraws cash or 613 transfers funds into a personal account, 614 the amount will be reported to the Internal Revenue Service as income with optional withholding.” (See Applicant’s Specification para. 0042 and fig. 6). However, the Examiner is unable to find any generic or specific description, algorithm, or steps in the instant specification that show that Applicant was in possession of a technique that shows how funds are held in escrow.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the phrases “wherein said minimum safe driving time is calculated by an artificial intelligence program averaging the travel times of a large number of similar vehicles in similar weather and traffic conditions” and “wherein said minimum safe trip time is calculated by an artificial intelligence program averaging the loading and unloading times of a large number of similar vehicles at similar pickup and delivery locations or at a particular pickup and delivery location.” Applicant’s specification discloses “…An artificial intelligence program could be used to estimate the travel and unloading times based on other drivers' experience with the traffic conditions and type of customer.” (See Applicant’s Specification para. 0040). However, the Examiner is unable to find any generic or specific description, algorithm, or steps in the instant specification that show that Applicant was in possession of a technique that shows application of artificial intelligence on averaged travel times of similar vehicles.
Claim 21 recites the phrase “wherein said sensor is connected to a vehicle drive train.” Applicant’s specification discloses “…the motion sensor 201 is shown attached to the transmission 207 to detect a rotating magnet 208 attached to the drive shaft 209 in the same manner as a bicycle cyclometer.” (See Applicant’s Specification para. 0020 and fig. 2). However, the Examiner is unable to find any generic or specific description, algorithm, or steps in the instant specification that show that Applicant was in possession of a technique that shows the sensor being attached to a vehicle drive train.
An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) en banc. The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Thus, there is no evidence of a complete specific application or embodiment to satisfy the requirement that the description is set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Independent claim 1 (system), and dependent claims 2-26, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e. machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite enforcing speed and meal and rest break rules, the system comprising a first computer and at least one second computer having means to control a first and second financial account or fiduciary instrument, a sensor producing a signal representative of the motion of a vehicle, said sensor connected to said first computer having means to record vehicle speed, duration of motion, and elapsed time between motions of said vehicle, said first computer having means to record identity, on duty status, on duty time, and driving time of at least one operator, altering said status, on duty time, and driving time responsive to said speed, elapsed time, and duration of motion, at least one set of rules enacted by a state, government, union, or corporation determining amounts of meal, rest, and off duty time required for safety during said on duty and driving time, said first computer subtracting elapsed time between motions of said vehicle from said amounts of meal, rest, and off duty time required for safety and adding the remainders to calculate violation time, having means to communicate said on duty and violation time of said operator to said second computer, said second computer having means to initiate, change, or stop financial transactions between said first and second financial accounts responsive to alterations in on duty and violation time communicated from first computer, an online computer server interface operable to record at least one pickup location and at least one delivery location of a vehicle and transfer funds from an external financial account or fiduciary instrument into said first financial account or fiduciary instrument, a computer mapping program having means to calculate distance between at least one pickup location and at least one delivery location and dividing said distance by at least one speed limit to determine minimum safe driving time for an operator, said second computer adding said amount of meal, rest, and off duty time required for safety to said minimum safe driving time to calculate minimum safe trip time, said second computer having means to hold said funds of said first account in escrow and transfer said funds to said second account in proportion to the fractional amount of said minimum safe trip time completed and rebating funds in proportion to the fractional amount of said minimum safe trip time not completed (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity, Mental Process, & Mathematical Concept), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are enforcing speed and meal and rest break rules by altering said status, on duty time, and driving time responsive to said speed, elapsed time, and duration of motion; initiate, change, or stop financial transactions between said first and second financial accounts responsive to alterations in on duty and violation time; transfer funds from an external financial account or fiduciary instrument into said first financial account or fiduciary instrument; and hold said funds of said first account in escrow and transfer said funds to said second account in proportion to the fractional amount of said minimum safe trip time completed and rebating funds in proportion to the fractional amount of said minimum safe trip time not completed, which is managing personal behavior. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are enforcing speed and meal and rest break rules amongst operators, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are enforcing speed and meal and rest break rules by altering said status, on duty time, and driving time responsive to said speed, elapsed time, and duration of motion; initiate, change, or stop financial transactions between said first and second financial accounts responsive to alterations in on duty and violation time; calculating violation time; transfer funds from an external financial account or fiduciary instrument into said first financial account or fiduciary instrument; calculate minimum safe trip time; and hold said funds of said first account in escrow and transfer said funds to said second account in proportion to the fractional amount of said minimum safe trip time completed and rebating funds in proportion to the fractional amount of said minimum safe trip time not completed, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgment, and evaluation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are enforcing speed and meal and rest break rules amongst operators, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mathematical concepts because the claimed limitations are subtracting elapsed time between motions of said vehicle from said amounts of meal, rest, and off duty time required for safety and adding the remainders to calculate violation time as well as dividing said distance by at least one speed limit to determine minimum safe driving time for an operator, which are mathematical calculations. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are subtracting, adding, and dividing to calculate violation time and minimum safe driving time for an operator, which recite the abstract idea of Mathematical Concept.
In addition, dependent claims 2-13, 15-16, and 19-20 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the control of financial accounts; subtracting the amount of off duty time; calculating the distance between transactions; dividing total violation time; transferring said funds of a first account; calculating the minimum safe driving time; adding minimum safe trip time to current time to calculate minimum safe pickup time; transferring funds from an external financial account; initiating financial transactions; personalizing with driver’s license information; and compression of on duty and violation time. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior; mental processes; and mathematical concepts. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas. Dependent claims 14, 17-18, and 21-26 will be discussed in Prong 2 analysis below.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “record vehicle speed, duration of motion, and elapsed time between motions of said vehicle; record identity, on duty status, on duty time, and driving time of at least one operator; communicate said on duty and violation time of said operator to said second computer; record at least one pickup location and at least one delivery location of a vehicle” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “A system for enforcing speed and meal and rest break rules, the system comprising a first computer and at least one second computer; a sensor producing a signal; an online computer server interface; a computer mapping program” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 2-13, 15-16, and 19-20 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 11, 14, 17-18, and 21-26 additionally recites “record at least one pickup time and at least one delivery time”; “transmitting and receiving data to and from a portable media communication device”; “it transmits data to and from a portable media communication device”; “transmit data to and from a portable media communication device passing between the two said transmitters” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “online computer server interface”; “wireless connectivity”; “portable media communication device is a telephone or computer”; “portable media communication device is a smart credit or debit card or biometric chip”; “sensor is connected to a vehicle drive train”; “sensor is connected to a vehicle electronic control unit”; “said sensor further comprises a magnetic induction transmitter capable of”; “said transmitter is connected to a vehicle door such that when the door is opened”; “said transmitter is connected to the open end of a vehicle door”; which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
Dependent claims 7-8 recite the following limitation, “said minimum safe trip time is calculated by an artificial intelligence program.” The “by an artificial intelligence program” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. These limitations would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “A system for enforcing speed and meal and rest break rules, the system comprising a first computer and at least one second computer; a sensor producing a signal; an online computer server interface; a computer mapping program” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, system claims 1-26 recite “A system for enforcing speed and meal and rest break rules, the system comprising a first computer and at least one second computer; a sensor producing a signal; an online computer server interface; a computer mapping program”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraph 0020 and Figures 1-2. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “record vehicle speed, duration of motion, and elapsed time between motions of said vehicle; record identity, on duty status, on duty time, and driving time of at least one operator; communicate said on duty and violation time of said operator to said second computer; record at least one pickup location and at least one delivery location of a vehicle” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Next, when the “artificial intelligence” is evaluated as an additional element, this feature is recited at a high level of generality and encompasses well-understood, routine, and conventional prior art activity. See, e.g., Giacchetti et al., US 20030065525, noting in paragraph [0140] that “the AI engine may employ any one or combination of the following computational techniques: neural network, constraint program, fuzzy logic, classification, conventional artificial intelligence, symbolic manipulation, fuzzy set theory, evolutionary computation, cybernetics, data mining, approximate reasoning, derivative-free optimization, decision trees, or soft computing.” See also, Nelson et al. US 2004/0215546, noting in paragraph [0019] that “use conventional artificial intelligence techniques to implement a predefined strategy.” Accordingly, the use of an artificial intelligence program does not add significantly more to the claim.
In addition, claims 2-13, 15-16, and 19-20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 11, 14, 17-18, and 21-26 additionally recites “record at least one pickup time and at least one delivery time”; “transmitting and receiving data to and from a portable media communication device”; “it transmits data to and from a portable media communication device”; “transmit data to and from a portable media communication device passing between the two said transmitters” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “online computer server interface”; “wireless connectivity”; “portable media communication device is a telephone or computer”; “portable media communication device is a smart credit or debit card or biometric chip”; “sensor is connected to a vehicle drive train”; “sensor is connected to a vehicle electronic control unit”; “said sensor further comprises a magnetic induction transmitter capable of”; “said transmitter is connected to a vehicle door such that when the door is opened”; “said transmitter is connected to the open end of a vehicle door”; which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-12, 14-19, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larschan (U.S 2007/0050108 A1) in view of Scholl (U.S 2024/0249306 A1).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Larschan discloses the following:
A system for enforcing speed and meal and rest break rules, the system comprising [see at least Paragraph 0098 for reference to the systems, methods and apparatus described provide the capability of logging driver activity and vehicle operating data, creating reports from the data containing information required to comply with HOS laws or regulations and IFTA fuel tax reporting, and emitting a signal indicating whether the driver is in-compliance or out-of-compliance with applicable HOS laws or regulations; Figure 3 and related text regarding a system and method for logging and reporting driver and vehicle operating data]
a first computer and at least one second computer [see at least Paragraph 0104 for reference to the on-board recorder including a processor and memory device and display; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 200 ‘on-board recorder’ and item 205 ‘processor’]
a sensor producing a signal representative of the motion of a vehicle, said sensor connected to said first computer having means to record vehicle speed, duration of motion, and elapsed time between motions of said vehicle [see at least Paragraph 0099 for reference to the system containing a vehicle mileage sensing system including a speed sensor (such as a magnetic pickup) and a vehicle odometer sensor display of the vehicle; Paragraph 0106 for reference to the vehicle mileage sensing system interface is formed by hard-wiring on-board recorder to the vehicle’s magnetic speed sensor; Paragraph 0107 for reference to data received from the vehicle mileage sensing system, such as a speed sensor positioned at the trans mission tail shaft of a vehicle can be automatically calibrated, for example, by comparing the data to mileage determined from GPS or through GPS mapping from a central server; Paragraph 0108 for reference to the recorder continuously records the vehicle operating data as raw vehicle operating data; Paragraph 0111 for reference to data processing determining change of duty status; Paragraph 0140 for reference the vehicle mileage sensing system includes a speed sensor and a vehicle odometer and the vehicle mileage data is acquired at periodic intervals, e.g., each interval period has a predetermined duration and/or same duration; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 130 ‘DATA ACQUISITION & RECORDING’ and item 140 ‘DATA PROCESSING’; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 130, 141 ‘HOS’, & 142 ‘IFA’]
said first computer having means to record identity, on duty status, on duty time, and driving time of at least one operator, altering said status, on duty time, and driving time responsive to said speed, elapsed time, and duration of motion [see at least Paragraph 0105 for reference to the identity of the driver being determined using the unique driver ID; Paragraph 0110 for reference to recorder continuously calculates the time the driver has been in each duty status over the course of a day and the HOS log includes the time per duty status for eight consecutive days, including a calculation of the total hours driven today, total hours on duty for the past seven days, and total hours on duty for the past eight days wherein the hours of service log is typically created from date, time, mileage, and duty status; Paragraph 0130 for reference to the recorder including a biometric reader for verifying the identity of the driver; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 110 ‘DRIVER IDENTIFICATION’, 130 ‘DATA ACQUISITION & RECORDING’ and item 140 ‘DATA PROCESSING’; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 130, 141 ‘HOS’, & 142 ‘IFA’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 505 ‘ID AND VERIFY DRIVER’]
at least one set of rules enacted by a state, government, union, or corporation determining amounts of meal, rest, and off duty time required for safety during said on duty and driving time [see at least Paragraph 0098 for reference to the systems, methods and apparatus described provide the capability of logging driver activity and vehicle operating data, creating reports from the data containing information required to comply with HOS laws or regulations and IFTA fuel tax reporting, and emitting a signal indicating whether the driver is in-compliance or out-of-compliance with applicable HOS laws or regulations; Paragraph 0104 for reference to recorder includes a display for informing the driver of the remaining driving time permitted by the HOS laws or regulations, and for displaying relevant information to federal, national, state, provincial or local authorities; Paragraph 0123 for reference to operation of the vehicle within these countries, and their respective states, provincial or local jurisdictions triggers different reporting requirements to comply with respective HOS laws or regulations]
said first computer subtracting elapsed time between motions of said vehicle from said amounts of meal, rest, and off duty time required for safety and adding the remainders to calculate violation time, having means to communicate said on duty and violation time of said operator to said second computer [see at least Paragraph 0101 for reference to indicating lights provide a visual indication of whether the driver's hours of service is in compliance or out-of-compliance with applicable hours of service regulations, for example, a red light indicates out of-compliance, a green light indicates in-compliance, and a yellow light indicates that the driver is approaching the end of permitted driving time; Paragraph 0109 for reference to data processing creates a HOS log and an IFTA log from the raw data and compares the HOS log to applicable regulations to determine whether the driver is im-compliance with HOS regulations; Paragraph 0144 for reference to the recorder emitting a signal indicating whether the driver is in-compliance or out-of-compliance with applicable IFTA laws or regulations, and other laws or regulations; Paragraph 0151 for reference to non-compliant driver can be identified by recorder 200 emitting short range signals, such as 315 MHZ or 434 MHZ (approximately 200 ft) RF signals, which can be detected by authorities; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 540 ‘COMPARE HOS LOG TO REGULATIONS TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE’]
an online computer server interface operable to record at least one pickup location and at least one delivery location of a vehicle [see at least Paragraph 0099 for reference to the driver communicating with recorder via a driver interface; Paragraph 0103 for reference to vehicle location, date, and time being input by the GPS periodically; Paragraph 0145 for reference to each change of duty status, whether input manually or determined automatically, location as determined by GPS can be recorded; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 220 ‘mileage sensing system interface’, item 230 ‘satellite interface’, & 240 ‘driver interface’]
a computer mapping program having means to calculate distance between at least one pickup location and at least one delivery location and dividing said distance by at least one speed limit to determine minimum safe driving time for an operator, said second computer adding said amount of meal, rest, and off duty time required for safety to said minimum safe driving time to calculate minimum safe trip time [see at least Paragraph 0107 for reference to data received from the vehicle mileage sensing system, such as a speed sensor positioned at the trans mission tail shaft of a vehicle can be automatically calibrated, for example, by comparing the data to mileage determined from a central server; Paragraph 0109 for reference to in creating the HOS log the recorder continuously calculates the time the driver has been in each duty station; Paragraph 0111 for reference to the CM reporting when the vehicle changes station; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 140 ‘DATA PROCESSING’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 510 ‘ACQUIRE & RECORD GPS DATA’, ITEM 515 ‘RECORD ODOMETER & ECM DATA, item 520 ‘DETERMINE & RECORD DUTY STATUS, DETERMINE VEHICLE STATUS AND AUTOMATICALLY DETERMINE CHANGE IN DUTY STATUS’, item 530 ‘CALCULATE TOTAL HOURS PER DAY IN EACH DUTY STATUS TO CREATE HOS LOG’; Figure 6 and related text regarding the hours of service log]
While Larschan discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose at least one second computer having means to control a first and second financial account or fiduciary instrument; said second computer having means to initiate, change, or stop financial transactions between said first and second financial accounts responsive to alterations in on duty and violation time communicated from first computer; transfer funds from an external financial account or fiduciary instrument into said first financial account or fiduciary instrument; said second computer having means to hold said funds of said first account in escrow and transfer said funds to said second account in proportion to the fractional amount of said minimum safe trip time completed and rebating funds in proportion to the fractional amount of said minimum safe trip time not completed.
However, Scholl discloses the following:
at least one second computer having means to control a first and second financial account or fiduciary instrument [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to the payment account information may previously have been provided by the driver during a registration process, and/or by an insurer provider associated with the driver to the DM computing device; Paragraph 0055 for reference to storing driver data associated with each driver of the vehicle, the driver data including vehicle operation data, payment account data, and driving reward data; Paragraph 0077 for reference to database may also include payment account information associated with driver, such as a payment account number, a signed direct deposit authorization form, and/or a routing number; Paragraph 0079 for reference to DM computing device is also in communication with a payment network (e.g., payment processing network) associated with a payment account tied to driver; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 214 ‘payment network’]
said second computer having means to initiate, change, or stop financial transactions between said first and second financial accounts responsive to alterations in on duty and violation time communicated from first computer [see at least Paragraph 0032 for reference to the DM computing device may transfer the driving rewards via direct deposit to a payment account (e.g., credit account, debit account, and/or prepaid account) associated with the driver; Paragraph 0032 for reference to the reward may take the form of a payment to an account or prepaid payment card associated with the dependent or penalty may take the form of removing funds from an account associated with the dependent and/or freezing a payment card (e.g., temporarily placing a hold on a payment card) associated with the dependent for a period of time]
transfer funds from an external financial account or fiduciary instrument into said first financial account or fiduciary instrument [see at least Paragraph 0032 for reference to the DM computing device may transfer the driving rewards via direct deposit to a payment account (e.g., credit account, debit account, and/or prepaid account) associated with the driver; Paragraph 0032 for reference to the reward may take the form of a payment to an account or prepaid payment card associated with the dependent; Paragraph 0079 for reference to DM computing device is also in communication with a payment network (e.g., payment processing network) associated with a payment account tied to driver; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 214 ‘payment network’]
said second computer having means to hold said funds of said first account in escrow and transfer said funds to said second account in proportion to the fractional amount of said minimum safe trip time completed and rebating funds in proportion to the fractional amount of said minimum safe trip time not completed [see at least Paragraph 0032 for reference to penalty may take the form of removing funds from an account associated with the dependent and/or freezing a payment card (e.g., temporarily placing a hold on a payment card) associated with the dependent for a period of time; Paragraph 0047 for reference to scores may be provided for a total amount of time driven, speed (e.g., with respect to a speed limit), acceleration, braking, turning, use or status of the user computing device while driving, use of turn signals, proximity to other vehicles or objects, other driving events, and/or scores derived from a combination of these factors, such as an overall driving or safety score wherein the generated driver assessment values may be stored in the database in association with the corresponding driver; Paragraph 0049 for reference to determine a registered driver qualifies for a driving credential by comparing the at least one driver assessment value associated with the driver to at least one threshold corresponding to the driving credential; Paragraph 0052 for reference to different fee levels may be associated with obtaining the driving credential and/or the corresponding digital document, each with different associated thresholds, and the DM computing device may determine the fee based on which of these thresholds are met by the corresponding driver assessment values; Paragraph 0092 for reference to the thresholds may specify a total time or distance that needs to be driven during driving instruction and/or certain minimum scores relating to driving safety and/or driving abilities]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Larschan to include the driver payment account control of Scholl. Doing so provides a real-time driver monitoring system that can provide accurate data as to a driver's driving behavior, and control access to driving credentials based on this data, as stated by Scholl (Paragraph 0004).
Claim 3
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 3, Larschan discloses the following:
wherein said second computer subtracts said amount of off duty time required for safety according to said rules from said on duty time to calculate additional violation time [see at least Paragraph 0101 for reference to indicating lights provide a visual indication of whether the driver's hours of service is in compliance or out-of-compliance with applicable hours of service regulations, for example, a red light indicates out of-compliance, a green light indicates in-compliance, and a yellow light indicates that the driver is approaching the end of permitted driving time; Paragraph 0109 for reference to data processing creates a HOS log and an IFTA log from the raw data and compares the HOS log to applicable regulations to determine whether the driver is im-compliance with HOS regulations; Paragraph 0144 for reference to the recorder emitting a signal indicating whether the driver is in-compliance or out-of-compliance with applicable IFTA laws or regulations, and other laws or regulations; Paragraph 0151 for reference to non-compliant driver can be identified by recorder 200 emitting short range signals, such as 315 MHZ or 434 MHZ (approximately 200 ft) RF signals, which can be detected by authorities; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 540 ‘COMPARE HOS LOG TO REGULATIONS TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE’]
Claim 4
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 4, Larschan discloses the following:
wherein said computer mapping program calculates distance between transactions and divides said distance by at least one speed limit to determine minimum safe driving time and subtracts elapsed time between transactions to calculate additional violation time [see at least Paragraph 0107 for reference to data received from the vehicle mileage sensing system, such as a speed sensor positioned at the trans mission tail shaft of a vehicle can be automatically calibrated, for example, by comparing the data to mileage determined from a central server; Paragraph 0109 for reference to in creating the HOS log the recorder continuously calculates the time the driver has been in each duty station; Paragraph 0111 for reference to the CM reporting when the vehicle changes station; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 140 ‘DATA PROCESSING’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 510 ‘ACQUIRE & RECORD GPS DATA’, ITEM 515 ‘RECORD ODOMETER & ECM DATA, item 520 ‘DETERMINE & RECORD DUTY STATUS, DETERMINE VEHICLE STATUS AND AUTOMATICALLY DETERMINE CHANGE IN DUTY STATUS’, item 530 ‘CALCULATE TOTAL HOURS PER DAY IN EACH DUTY STATUS TO CREATE HOS LOG’; Figure 6 and related text regarding the hours of service log]
Claim 6
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, Larschan does not disclose wherein said second computer transfers said funds of said first account to a third financial account or fiduciary instrument controlled by a state, government, union, corporation, or other entity in proportion to said violation time, additional violation time, or total violation time.
Regarding Claim 6, Scholl discloses the following:
wherein said second computer transfers said funds of said first account to a third financial account or fiduciary instrument controlled by a state, government, union, corporation, or other entity in proportion to said violation time, additional violation time, or total violation time [see at least Paragraph 0032 for reference to Driving rewards may be a credit or discount applicable to an insurance payment account associated with an insurance policy of the driver (e.g., monthly discounts applicable to a driver's next statement); Paragraph 0035 for reference to the payment account linked with the DM computing device may be that of a named insured, rather than an authorized driver listed on an automobile insurance policy associated with the vehicle]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Larschan to include the driver payment account control of Scholl. Doing so provides a real-time driver monitoring system that can provide accurate data as to a driver's driving behavior, and control access to driving credentials based on this data, as stated by Scholl (Paragraph 0004).
Claim 7
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, Larschan does not disclose wherein said minimum safe driving time is calculated by an artificial intelligence program averaging the travel times of a large number of similar vehicles in similar weather and traffic conditions.
Regarding Claim 7, Scholl discloses the following:
wherein said minimum safe driving time is calculated by an artificial intelligence program averaging the travel times of a large number of similar vehicles in similar weather and traffic conditions [see at least Paragraph 0037 for reference to DM computing device may also use the artificial intelligence model to generate reports and/or recommendations for areas to work on to assist the driver in qualifying for the driving credentials; Paragraph 0046 for reference to the DM computing device may be configured to generate, by applying an artificial intelligence model to the collected vehicle operation data stored in association with the first driver, at least one driver assessment value; Paragraph 0048 for reference to DM computing device may be configured to train the artificial intelligence model using sample data (e.g., pairs of sets of sample vehicle operation data and sets of sample driver assessment values that should result from the sample vehicle operation data), historical data, and/or some combination thereof]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the driving time method of Larschan to include the artificial intelligence model of Scholl. Doing so provides a real-time driver monitoring system that can provide accurate data as to a driver's driving behavior, and control access to driving credentials based on this data, as stated by Scholl (Paragraph 0004).
Claim 8
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, Larschan does not disclose wherein said minimum safe trip time is calculated by an artificial intelligence program averaging the loading and unloading times of a large number of similar vehicles at similar pickup and delivery locations or at a particular pickup and delivery location.
Regarding Claim 8, Scholl discloses the following:
wherein said minimum safe trip time is calculated by an artificial intelligence program averaging the loading and unloading times of a large number of similar vehicles at similar pickup and delivery locations or at a particular pickup and delivery location [see at least Paragraph 0037 for reference to DM computing device may also use the artificial intelligence model to generate reports and/or recommendations for areas to work on to assist the driver in qualifying for the driving credentials; Paragraph 0046 for reference to the DM computing device may be configured to generate, by applying an artificial intelligence model to the collected vehicle operation data stored in association with the first driver, at least one driver assessment value; Paragraph 0048 for reference to DM computing device may be configured to train the artificial intelligence model using sample data (e.g., pairs of sets of sample vehicle operation data and sets of sample driver assessment values that should result from the sample vehicle operation data), historical data, and/or some combination thereof]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the driving time method of Larschan to include the artificial intelligence model of Scholl. Doing so provides a real-time driver monitoring system that can provide accurate data as to a driver's driving behavior, and control access to driving credentials based on this data, as stated by Scholl (Paragraph 0004).
Claim 9
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 9, Larschan discloses the following:
wherein said second computer adds said minimum safe trip time to current time to calculate minimum safe pickup time and displays said minimum safe pickup time on said online computer server interface [see at least Paragraph 0104 for reference to the recorder including display for informing the driver of the remaining driving time permitted by the HOS laws or regulations, and for displaying relevant information to federal, national, state, provincial or local authorities; Paragraph 0109 for reference to in creating the HOS log the recorder continuously calculates the time the driver has been in each duty station; Paragraph 0111 for reference to the CM reporting when the vehicle changes station; Paragraph 0112 for reference to displaying on display device the hours of service log and compliance status with display; Figure 1 and related text regarding a front view display of an on-board recorder; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 140 ‘DATA PROCESSING’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 510 ‘ACQUIRE & RECORD GPS DATA’, ITEM 515 ‘RECORD ODOMETER & ECM DATA, item 520 ‘DETERMINE & RECORD DUTY STATUS, DETERMINE VEHICLE STATUS AND AUTOMATICALLY DETERMINE CHANGE IN DUTY STATUS’, item 530 ‘CALCULATE TOTAL HOURS PER DAY IN EACH DUTY STATUS TO CREATE HOS LOG’; Figure 6 and related text regarding the hours of service log]
Claim 10
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 10, Larschan discloses the following:
wherein said second computer adds said minimum safe trip time to the delivery time of a loaded vehicle to calculate minimum safe pickup time and displays said minimum safe pickup time on said online computer server interface [see at least Paragraph 0104 for reference to the recorder including display for informing the driver of the remaining driving time permitted by the HOS laws or regulations, and for displaying relevant information to federal, national, state, provincial or local authorities; Paragraph 0109 for reference to in creating the HOS log the recorder continuously calculates the time the driver has been in each duty station; Paragraph 0111 for reference to the CM reporting when the vehicle changes station; Paragraph 0112 for reference to displaying on display device the hours of service log and compliance status with display; Figure 1 and related text regarding a front view display of an on-board recorder; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 140 ‘DATA PROCESSING’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 510 ‘ACQUIRE & RECORD GPS DATA’, ITEM 515 ‘RECORD ODOMETER & ECM DATA, item 520 ‘DETERMINE & RECORD DUTY STATUS, DETERMINE VEHICLE STATUS AND AUTOMATICALLY DETERMINE CHANGE IN DUTY STATUS’, item 530 ‘CALCULATE TOTAL HOURS PER DAY IN EACH DUTY STATUS TO CREATE HOS LOG’; Figure 6 and related text regarding the hours of service log]
Claim 11
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 11, Larschan discloses the following:
wherein said online computer server interface is operable to record at least one pickup time and at least one delivery time and adding said minimum safe trip times for each pickup and delivery time to calculate additional minimum safe pickup and delivery times and display said minimum safe pickup and delivery times on said online computer server interface [see at least Paragraph 0099 for reference to an on-board recorder including various inputs for interfacing with a driver of the vehicle; Paragraph 0104 for reference to the recorder including display for informing the driver of the remaining driving time permitted by the HOS laws or regulations, and for displaying relevant information to federal, national, state, provincial or local authorities; Paragraph 0109 for reference to in creating the HOS log the recorder continuously calculates the time the driver has been in each duty station; Paragraph 0111 for reference to the CM reporting when the vehicle changes station; Paragraph 0112 for reference to displaying on display device the hours of service log and compliance status with display; Figure 1 and related text regarding a front view display of an on-board recorder; Figure 2 and related text regarding ‘driver input’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 140 ‘DATA PROCESSING’; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 240 ‘Driver Input’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 510 ‘ACQUIRE & RECORD GPS DATA’, ITEM 515 ‘RECORD ODOMETER & ECM DATA, item 520 ‘DETERMINE & RECORD DUTY STATUS, DETERMINE VEHICLE STATUS AND AUTOMATICALLY DETERMINE CHANGE IN DUTY STATUS’, item 530 ‘CALCULATE TOTAL HOURS PER DAY IN EACH DUTY STATUS TO CREATE HOS LOG’; Figure 6 and related text regarding the hours of service log]
Claim 12
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, Larschan does not disclose wherein said online computer server interface prevents transfer of funds from an external financial account or fiduciary instrument into said first financial account or fiduciary instrument when a pickup or delivery time is scheduled to occur prior to a corresponding minimum safe pickup or delivery time.
Regarding Claim 12, Scholl discloses the following:
wherein said online computer server interface prevents transfer of funds from an external financial account or fiduciary instrument into said first financial account or fiduciary instrument when a pickup or delivery time is scheduled to occur prior to a corresponding minimum safe pickup or delivery time [see at least Paragraph 0032 for reference to penalty may take the form of removing funds from an account associated with the dependent and/or freezing a payment card (e.g., temporarily placing a hold on a payment card) associated with the dependent for a period of time; Paragraph 0047 for reference to scores may be provided for a total amount of time driven, speed (e.g., with respect to a speed limit), acceleration, braking, turning, use or status of the user computing device while driving, use of turn signals, proximity to other vehicles or objects, other driving events, and/or scores derived from a combination of these factors, such as an overall driving or safety score wherein the generated driver assessment values may be stored in the database in association with the corresponding driver; Paragraph 0049 for reference to determine a registered driver qualifies for a driving credential by comparing the at least one driver assessment value associated with the driver to at least one threshold corresponding to the driving credential; Paragraph 0052 for reference to different fee levels may be associated with obtaining the driving credential and/or the corresponding digital document, each with different associated thresholds, and the DM computing device may determine the fee based on which of these thresholds are met by the corresponding driver assessment values; Paragraph 0092 for reference to the thresholds may specify a total time or distance that needs to be driven during driving instruction and/or certain minimum scores relating to driving safety and/or driving abilities]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Larschan to include the driver payment account control of Scholl. Doing so provides a real-time driver monitoring system that can provide accurate data as to a driver's driving behavior, and control access to driving credentials based on this data, as stated by Scholl (Paragraph 0004).
Claim 14
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 14, Larschan discloses the following:
The system of claim 1 further comprising wireless connectivity [see at least Paragraph 0103 for reference to a wireless data portal being provided to permit the uploading and downloading of data from and to recorder; Paragraph 0114 for reference a wireless telecommunications network made up of pager networks, cell phone networks and wide area networks provides low cost options. Other options are an infrared connection, a radio connection, and a satellite connection wherein recorder is programmed to seek a single wireless telecommunications network to upload data to a host server]
Claim 15
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 15, Larschan discloses the following:
The system of claim 14 further comprising a silent alarm [see at least Paragraph 0151 for reference to authorities being alerted while driving past a vehicle on the highway or when sitting along an interstate and monitoring for violators]
Claim 16
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 16, Larschan discloses the following:
The system of claim 1 further comprising a portable media communication device capable of initiating financial transactions [see at least Paragraph 0099 for reference to the driver communicates with recorder via a driver interface permitting data input and interaction with the driver through the use of a portable memory device reader, and duty status buttons; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 241 ‘portable memory device reader’]
Claim 17
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 17, Larschan discloses the following:
The system of claim 16 wherein said portable media communication device is a telephone or computer [see at least Paragraph 0099 for reference to the driver communicates with recorder via a driver interface permitting data input and interaction with the driver through the use of a portable memory device reader, and duty status buttons; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 241 ‘portable memory device reader’]
Claim 18
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 18, Larschan discloses the following:
The system of claim 16 wherein said portable media communication device is a smart credit or debit card or biometric chip [see at least Paragraph 0105 for reference to a portable memory device issued to the operator and operable with a portable memory device reader such as a smart card or contact memory button; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 241 ‘portable memory device reader’]
Claim 19
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 19, Larschan discloses the following:
The system of claim 18 wherein said card or chip is personalized with driver’s license information [see at least Paragraph 0105 for reference to the identity of the driver is determined by the use of a unique driver ID, for example, a portable memory device issued to the operator and operable with a portable memory device reader; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 241 ‘portable memory device reader’]
Claim 21
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 21, Larschan discloses the following:
The system of claim 1 wherein said sensor is connected to a vehicle drive train [see at least data received from the vehicle mileage sensing system, such as a speed sensor positioned at the transmission tail shaft of a vehicle]
Claim 22
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 22, Larschan discloses the following:
The system of claim 1 wherein said sensor is connected to a vehicle electronic control unit [see at least Paragraph 0099 for reference to the system containing a vehicle mileage sensing system including a speed sensor (such as a magnetic pickup) and a vehicle odometer sensor display of the vehicle; Paragraph 0106 for reference to the vehicle mileage sensing system interface is formed by hard-wiring on-board recorder to the vehicle’s magnetic speed sensor; Paragraph 0107 for reference to data received from the vehicle mileage sensing system, such as a speed sensor positioned at the trans mission tail shaft of a vehicle can be automatically calibrated, for example, by comparing the data to mileage determined from GPS or through GPS mapping from a central server; Paragraph 0108 for reference to the recorder continuously records the vehicle operating data as raw vehicle operating data; Paragraph 0111 for reference to data processing determining change of duty status; Paragraph 0140 for reference the vehicle mileage sensing system includes a speed sensor and a vehicle odometer and the vehicle mileage data is acquired at periodic intervals, e.g., each interval period has a predetermined duration and/or same duration; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 130 ‘DATA ACQUISITION & RECORDING’ and item 140 ‘DATA PROCESSING’; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 130, 141 ‘HOS’, & 142 ‘IFA’]
Claim 23
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, regarding Claim 23, Larschan discloses the following:
The system of claim 1 wherein said sensor further comprises a magnetic induction transmitter capable of transmitting and receiving data to and from a portable media communication device [see at least Paragraph 0099 for reference to the system containing a vehicle mileage sensing system including a speed sensor (such as a magnetic pickup) and a vehicle odometer sensor display of the vehicle; Paragraph 0106 for reference to the vehicle mileage sensing system interface is formed by hard-wiring on-board recorder to the vehicle’s magnetic speed sensor]
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larschan (U.S 2007/0050108 A1) in view of Scholl (U.S 2024/0249306 A1), as applied in claim 1, in view of Casto (U.S 6,038,547 B1).
Claim 2
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, they do not disclose wherein said first account is a pending transaction account sharing the same account number of said second account, said second computer having means to advance funds to said second account in proportion to the fractional amount of said minimum safe trip time completed and reduce the amount of a pending transaction in proportion to the fractional amount of said minimum safe trip time not completed.
Regarding Claim 2, Casto discloses the following:
wherein said first account is a pending transaction account sharing the same account number of said second account, said second computer having means to advance funds to said second account in proportion to the fractional amount of said minimum safe trip time completed and reduce the amount of a pending transaction in proportion to the fractional amount of said minimum safe trip time not completed [see at least Col 5 lines 66-67 & Col 6 lines 1-3 for reference to the percentage completion information being used by the system to automatically calculate and include total percentage completion, total amount of contract remaining, total dollar value of work completed so far and in the last month, and any other calculation field; Col 6 lines 19-20 for reference to the generation of payment requests for the percentage of work completed]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transferring of funds of Scholl to include the funds transfer based on the percent of project completion of Casto. Doing so would provide a more efficient method and system for tracking the progress of a project, as stated by Casto (Col 2 lines 65-67).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larschan (U.S 2007/0050108 A1) in view of Scholl (U.S 2024/0249306 A1), as applied in claim 4, in view of Brook (U.S 2023/0130875 A1).
Claim 5
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, they do not disclose wherein said second computer divides total violation time by total on duty time of said operator to calculate a performance ratio and displays said performance ratio on said online computer server interface.
Regarding Claim 5, Brook discloses the following:
wherein said second computer divides total violation time by total on duty time of said operator to calculate a performance ratio and displays said performance ratio on said online computer server interface [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to driving performance metric may be a comparison (e.g., the driver may be compared to other drivers of the same age, other drivers in the same region, other drivers of the same or similar vehicles, and/or the manufacturer's published guidelines) wherein the comparison may be expressed as a percentile rank of performance and/or a category (e.g., better than an average driver of the same or similar vehicles), furthermore, the driving performance metric may be based at least in part upon a set of driving behavior data collected at a particular time interval or may be based at least in part upon changes in driving behavior data over time; Paragraph 0032 for reference to the additional driving performance data may be captured by the user via display and sent to the server by communications interface]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the driver behavior data of Larschan to include the performance ratio calculation of Brook. Doing so the present embodiments advantageously provide a user interface that presents complicated telematics or other vehicle maintenance data in a manner that is easily understandable by a user, as stated by Brook (Paragraph 0021).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larschan (U.S 2007/0050108 A1) in view of Scholl (U.S 2024/0249306 A1), as applied in claim 11, in view of Scholl (U.S 2021/0224880 A1).
Claim 13
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, they do not disclose wherein said online computer server interface requires a government declaration of a state of emergency prior to transferring funds from an external financial account or fiduciary instrument into said first financial account or fiduciary instrument when a pickup or delivery time is scheduled to occur prior to a corresponding minimum safe pickup or delivery time.
Regarding Claim 13, Scholl ‘880 discloses the following:
wherein said online computer server interface requires a government declaration of a state of emergency prior to transferring funds from an external financial account or fiduciary instrument into said first financial account or fiduciary instrument when a pickup or delivery time is scheduled to occur prior to a corresponding minimum safe pickup or delivery time [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to the system being used in times of a catastrophic event or disaster relief effort; Paragraph 0056 for reference to the transaction being cleared and settled between the merchant and the card issuer wherein settlement refers to the transfer of funds between the merchant account, the acquirer, and the card issuer associated with the transaction]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transfer of payment of Scholl to include the transfer of funds during state of emergency of Scholl ‘880. Doing so the relief organizations are configured to receive the essential needs data to facilitate providing a personalized sustainability package to the user to help the user during their time of need, as stated by Scholl ‘880 (Paragraph 0086).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larschan (U.S 2007/0050108 A1) in view of Scholl (U.S 2024/0249306 A1), as applied in claim 18, in view of Molin (U.S 2014/0226010 A1).
Claim 20
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, they do not disclose wherein said on duty and violation time is compressed to accompany a security authentication code of said card or chip.
Regarding Claim 20, Molin discloses the following:
The system of claim 18 wherein said on duty and violation time is compressed to accompany a security authentication code of said card or chip [see at least Abstract for reference to the compression and encoding of collected driver and vehicle event data; Paragraph 0065 for reference to the controller is operative to communicate the acquired data to the one or more receivers in a raw data form, that is without processing the data, in a processed form such as in a compressed form, in an encrypted form or both as may be necessary or desired]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Larschan to include the compression of vehicle data of Molin. Doing so would provide an overall implementation designed to focus on significant safety-related events, and to provide a software server architecture and corresponding web applications providing an interface for efficient user operation, as stated by Molin (Paragraph 0006).
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larschan (U.S 2007/0050108 A1) in view of Scholl (U.S 2024/0249306 A1), as applied in claim 23, in view of May (U.S 8,662,512 B2).
Claim 24
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, they do not disclose wherein said transmitter is connected to a vehicle door such that when the door is opened, it transmits data to and from a portable media communication device.
Regarding Claim 24, May discloses the following:
The system of claim 23 wherein said transmitter is connected to a vehicle door such that when the door is opened, it transmits data to and from a portable media communication device [see at least Col 3 lines 51-59 for reference to each door sensor consisting of a transmitter and a magnet mounted at the edge of each door opposing the door jamb; Figure 2 and related text regarding the wireless door transmitter]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmission configuration of Larschan to include the connection to the vehicle door of May. Doing so provides a wireless sensor that can be glued, bonded or otherwise secured to or near a door of a vehicle to determine when a door is opened or closed, as stated by May (Col 2 lines 24-26).
Claim 25
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, they do not disclose wherein said transmitter is connected to the open end of a vehicle door.
Regarding Claim 25, May discloses the following:
The system of claim 23 wherein said transmitter is connected to the open end of a vehicle door [see at least Col 3 lines 51-59 for reference to each door sensor consisting of a transmitter and a magnet mounted at the edge of each door opposing the door jamb; Figure 2 and related text regarding the wireless door transmitter]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmission configuration of Larschan to include the connection to the vehicle door of May. Doing so provides a wireless sensor that can be glued, bonded or otherwise secured to or near a door of a vehicle to determine when a door is opened or closed, as stated by May (Col 2 lines 24-26).
Claim 26
While the combination of Larschan and Scholl discloses the limitations above, they do not disclose wherein said transmitter is connected to a vehicle door or door sill further comprising a second transmitter connected to a door sill so as to transmit data to and from a portable media communication device passing between the two said transmitters.
Regarding Claim 26, May discloses the following:
The system of claim 23 wherein said transmitter is connected to a vehicle door or door sill further comprising a second transmitter connected to a door sill so as to transmit data to and from a portable media communication device passing between the two said transmitters [see at least Col 3 lines 51-59 for reference to each door sensor consisting of a transmitter and a magnet mounted at the edge of each door opposing the door jamb; Figure 1 and related text regarding the multiple door sensors; Figure 2 and related text regarding the wireless door transmitter]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmission configuration of Larschan to include the connection to the vehicle door of May. Doing so provides a wireless sensor that can be glued, bonded or otherwise secured to or near a door of a vehicle to determine when a door is opened or closed, as stated by May (Col 2 lines 24-26).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 2013/0289873 A1
Mitchell, Peter
SYSTEM AND MTHOD FOR TRACKING CRIVER HOURS AND TIMEKEEPING
US 2016/0257323 A1
Meyer et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A VEHICLE SYSTEM TO ACHIEVE DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES DURING A TRIP
US 2011/0106370 A1
Duddle et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DRIVER STYLE MONITORING AND ANALYSING
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM EST.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624