DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 12/24/2025.
Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 15, and 17 – 20 have been amended by Applicant.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 remain as original.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
The prior 35 USC 101 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 10/28/2025 as to claims 1 – 20 are maintained in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
The prior 35 USC 103 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 10/28/2025 as to claims 1 – 20 are maintained in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
Response to Arguments
There are no new grounds of rejection herein as to any of the claims.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1 – 20, Applicant argues that the claims as amended are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because they meet the analysis set forth by the Supreme Court. Remarks 8 - 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The subject claims noted were analyzed pursuant to MPEP 2106, et seq., and are still considered ineligible. Step 1 is met because the claims are directed towards one of the four statutory categories; Part 2A-Prong1 of the test is trying to evaluate if the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04(a)); Part 2A-Prong 2 is to evaluate whether the subject claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application, and, lastly, Part 2B checks whether the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. A detailed and formal analysis pursuant to 35 USC 101 as the same applies to the amended claim set will follow below.
As respects 35 USC 101, the claims as a whole amount to a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations when taken individually and in combination are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field nor improvements to the function of the computer itself. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea. A detailed and formal analysis pursuant to 35 USC 101 as the same applies to the specifics of the claims follows below.
Applicant argues per 35 USC 101 that claims 1 - 20 as amended do not recite a judicial exception at Step 2A, Prong One. Remarks 9. Namely:
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite an improvement to other technology or technical field, and also recite use of the ideas in a meaningful way beyond generally linking to a particular technological environment. For example, amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite many significant additional elements above and beyond what the Office Action identifies as the abstract idea, including, among other things:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As the below analysis details, the claims continue to recite the abstract idea of
determining, in real-time, whether the user is driving under an influence of the one or more consumed substances.
Applicant argues per 35 USC 101 however that claims 1 - 20 as amended now recite the additional element of:
transmitting for displaying, on a mobile device of the user, information
as essentially a practical application. Remarks 9. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The above limitation is just transmitting data for displaying, and only amounts to a post solution output of a mental process, and does not constitute a practical application.
Examiner notes that the heavily amended initial claims of 05/10/2024 (resulting in the amended claims of 12/24/2025, here analyzed) required examiner to substantially change the prior 35 USC 103 combination analyses, including the necessity of applying (in part) a different art combination. This art change was necessitated by said amendments to the claims. That said, all claims 1 – 20 hereto are again rejected (as noted above) per 35 USC 103.
Applicant’s arguments pursuant to 35 USC 103 are moot, because the substantial amendments to the claims required a new art combination (see below) which was not addressed in Applicant’s arguments.
Generally as to obviousness, examiner submits that it is determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685,686 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,147 (CCPA 1976). Using this standard, examiner submits that the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness was successfully established in the prior Office Action of 10/28/2025, and also respecting the pending amended claim set of 12/24/2025, as seen below.
Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily altered or modified, and that there must be some reason why a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art would be motivated to make the proposed modifications. Although the motivation or suggestion to make modifications must be articulated, it is respectfully submitted that there is no requirement that the motivation to make modifications must be expressly articulated within the references themselves. References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures, In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969).
Examiner also notes that the motivation to combine the applied references is, where appropriate in the below detailed analysis pursuant to 35 USC 103, additionally accompanied by select passages from the respective references which specifically support that particular motivation. It is also respectfully submitted that motivation based on the logic and scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, which evidence can also support a finding of obviousness, is otherwise provided in the detailed 35 USC 103 analysis of the claim set below. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning).
Examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347.
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.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of mirrored Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 (claim 1 here used as representative):
Claim 1. A method
being implemented via execution of computing instructions configured to run on one or more processors and
stored on one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, the method comprising:
receiving sensor data from one or more substance-detecting sensors located near or on a user,
wherein the one or more substance-detecting sensors are configured to detect one or more chemical substances;
determining, based on the sensor data, one or more consumed substances of the one or more chemical substances consumed by the user;
determining, in real-time, whether the user is driving under an influence of the one or more consumed substances comprising:
determining whether the user is driving within a respective reaction time of at least one of the one or more consumed substances, wherein the respective reaction time is an amount of time since the one or more chemical substances was detected
updating a user profile of the user to include user driving behavior data comprising one or more of: (a) the sensor data, (b) the one or more consumed substances, or
(c) a determination that the user is driving under influence of the one or more consumed substances:
and transmitting for displaying, on a mobile device of the user, information regarding whether the user is determined to be driving under the influence of the one or more consumed substances.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The independent mirrored claims recite a method (claim 1), a system (claim 8) and a non-transitory CRM (composition, claim 15).
Thus, these claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of: determining in real-time whether user is driving under influence of the one or more consumed substances. This limitation, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of being performed by storing instructions and processing data via a non-transitory computer readable media. That is, other than storing instructions and processing data via a non-transitory computer readable media, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim could encompass a parent of a teenage driver who returns home at midnight, keys in hand, the parent then wondering / examining the key wielding teen as to whether the teen is under the influence of this or that prohibited substance. It can be easily done in the mind of the parent (examining one who’s potentially under the influence). Police Officers do essentially the same in untold numbers of traffic stops. The mere nominal recitations of storing instructions and processing data via a non-transitory computer readable media, do not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Moreover, as above discussed, the newly amended limitation of “transmitting for display [info]” is simply a post solution output of the mental process.
Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite additional elements or steps of storing instructions and processing data via a non-transitory computer readable media, so as to receive, determine, determine, and update sensor or other information about whether a driver’s driving under the influence. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means for examining the status of a driver) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Moreover, these limitations merely describe generally “applying” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computer, as noted above. The storing instructions and processing data via a non-transitory computer readable media are recited at a high level of generality and they merely automate the several receive, determine, determine, and update steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic devices, processors, memories, and/or generic computer-readable media, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the several determining / in response to determining steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. There is nothing in the disclosure that recites that the storing of instructions and the processing of data via a non-transitory computer readable media are anything other than a conventional, generic, computer and/or computer controlled components. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the above underlined several elements / steps of determining and in response to determining noise levels (in order to reduce the same in a vehicle cabin) amount to well-understood, routine, conventional activity and are supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14, and 16 - 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of these dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s). The same analysis applies here in 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.
Dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14, and 16 - 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the above rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Given the above analyses, all claims 1 – 20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 USC 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Heller (US20230339428A1) in view of McGill (US20190202464A1) and in further view of Hemphill (US20240367513A1).
Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 15:
Heller discloses:
A method being implemented via execution of computing instructions configured to run on one or more processors and stored on one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, the method comprising: (“Embodiments of the invention may include one or more article(s) (e.g., memory 820 or storage 830) such as a computer or processor non-transitory readable medium, or a computer or processor non-transitory storage medium, such as for example a memory, a disk drive, or a USB flash memory encoding, including, or storing instructions, e.g., computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by a processor or controller, carry out methods disclosed herein.”, [0149]);
receiving sensor data from one or more substance-detecting sensors located near or on a user, wherein the one or more substance-detecting sensors are configured to detect one or more chemical substances; (“One aspect of the present invention provides a system for preventing an unauthorized and/or hazardous use of a vehicle, the system may include: a first sensor; a driver recognition module in communication with the first sensor, the driver recognition module is configured to determine an identity of a driver based on readings of the first sensor; a second sensor; a driver condition determination module in communication with the second sensor, the driver condition determination module is configured to determine a condition of the driver based on readings of the second sensor;”, [004]) and (“Condition determination module 340 may be configured to determine a level of: cannabis (marijuana), or opiates (such as heroin).”, [0115]) and (“Condition determination module 340 may be configured to determine a level of: cannabis (marijuana), or opiates (such as heroin).”, [0115]), data may be received from a substance detecting sensor near a user;
determining, based on the sensor data, one or more consumed substances of the one or more chemical substances consumed by the user; (“a driver condition determination module in communication with the second sensor, the driver condition determination module is configured to determine a condition of the driver based on readings of the second sensor;”, [004]) and (“In some embodiments, the second sensor is selected from a group consisting of: sensor for measuring levels of legal drugs, sensor for measuring levels of illegal drugs, sensors for measuring levels of hormones.”, [006]);
determining, in real-time, whether the user is driving under an influence of the one or more consumed substances, (“Advantageously, the disclosed system and method may provide an objective and real-time determination of a driver's condition by measuring various physiological parameters of the driver (e.g., alcohol levels, drugs levels, hormones, etc.) and an objective real-time determination whether the driver is capable to safely operate the vehicle.”, [095]);
updating a user profile of the user to include user driving behavior data comprising one or more of: (a) the sensor data, (b) the one or more consumed substances, or (c) a determination that the user is driving under the influence of the one or more consumed substances; (“According to some embodiments, system 100 may include a user interface 150. Hazardous driving prevention module 140 may be connected to a user interface 150 to, for example, allow a user … to adjust system 100 by, for example, changing how a driver is characterized by driver identification module 120 and/or by driver condition determination module 130 (e.g., based on readings of sensor(s) 110).”, [065]), the module that controls hazardous driving behavior of driver is updated with, for example, sensor data of driver.
Heller does not expressly disclose, but McGill teaches:
comprising: determining whether the user is driving within a respective reaction time of at least one of the one or more consumed substances, wherein the respective reaction time is an amount of time since the one or more chemical substances was detected; Examiner broadly interprets this amended limitation consistent with the Disclosure to include the meaning that it’s determined as above whether driver is (still) impaired post consumption of this or that barred substance. See Specification herein [050] regarding context for “reaction time” (e.g., there framed as 2 – 12 hours post consumption/ vehicle sensor detection) wherein “reaction time” is there disclosed as simply describing a measure of time within which driver is still under the influence of this or that consumed substance. That said, this limitation simply determines via sensors whether driver is still impaired from the consumption of the substance(s), … (“The memory modules store machine-readable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to receive one or more signals output by the one or more sensors and determine a driver of the vehicle is incapacitated based on the one or more signals by the one or more sensors. In response to determining the driver is incapacitated, the processors are cause to determine a specific type of incapacitation of the driver based on the one or more signals by the one or more sensors.”, [004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Heller to incorporate the teachings of McGill because Heller would be more efficient and versatile if it could warn a smart device as to whether a vehicle driver was incapacitated and thus take action, if necessary, as was done in McGill (“More specifically, a driver intoxicated by alcohol often operates the vehicle at too slow of a speed. The intoxicated driver may also have a delayed reaction to specific events such as moving out of the way of an impending obstacle.”, [003]).
The combination of Heller and McGill does not disclose, but Hemphill teaches:
and transmitting for displaying, on a mobile device of the user, information regarding whether the user is determined to be driving under the influence of the one or more consumed substances. (“In another and/or alternative non-limiting aspect of the present disclosure, the instructions stored in the memory of the impaired driving prevention system can optionally be configured to further cause the onboard operating system to display a warning to the vehicle operator or driver via the onboard interface and/or some other display (e.g., smart device, smart phone, tablet, display in vehicle, etc.) based on the amount, degree or level of impairment, and/or whether one or more preconditions have or have not been met (e.g., vehicle operator or driver is located in an operating seat of the vehicle, one or more of the vehicle's windows, sunroof, hatch window and/or hatch are open or closed, one or more vehicle doors are open or closed or locked, seatbelt is fastened or unfastened, etc.).”, [010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Heller to incorporate the teachings of Hemphill because Heller would be more efficient and versatile if it could additionally display to a smart device notice of an incapacitated driver, as was done in Hemphill (“the one or more processors optionally cause a display device (e.g., via an onboard interface, LCD display, mobile device, smart phone, tablet, etc.) to display the amount, degree or level of impairment to the vehicle operator or driver,”, [019]).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16:
The combination of Heller, McGill, and Hemphill, disclose the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15:
Heller further teaches:
wherein: the one or more chemical substances comprise one or more inhalable cannabis-derived substances. (“Condition determination module 340 may be configured to determine a level of: cannabis (marijuana), or opiates (such as heroin).”, [0115]).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17:
The combination of Heller, McGill, and Hemphill, disclose the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15:
Heller further teaches:
wherein: receiving the sensor data comprises determining a user location using at least the mobile device of the user. (“In some embodiments, storage module 160 may store trip information. The trip information may, for example, include speed, location, time etc.”, [069]) and (“According to various embodiments, hazardous driving prevention module 140 may use a sensor and/or network connection of a driver's cell phone and/or a processor and/or a battery and/or a memory of the driver's cell phone. For example, the cell phone may include an application that coordinates connection to system 100.”, [073]).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18:
The combination of Heller, McGill, and Hemphill, disclose the limitations of claims 5, 12, and 19:
Hemphill further teaches:
wherein the user location is determined based at least on a global positioning sensor (GPS) of the mobile device of the user. (“In another and/or alternative non-limiting aspect of the present disclosure, the instructions stored in the memory of the impaired driving prevention system can optionally be configured to further cause the onboard operating system to a) permit the vehicle operator or driver to enable operation of the vehicle after the vehicle operator or driver successfully passes the test for the presence of the predetermined substance and/or some other physical test of the vehicle operator or driver; and/or b) contact and/or send information to emergency personnel, police, fire department, department of public safety, etc. regarding the vehicle's location (e.g., GPS data of the vehicle that is stored in the onboard operating system, and/or obtained by a GPS sensor, cell tower location data that is stored in the onboard operating system, and/or obtained by a mobile data transmitter/sensor, etc.), Hemphill at [012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Heller to incorporate the teachings of Hemphill because Heller would be more efficient and versatile if it could additionally display to a smart device notice of an incapacitated driver, as was done in Hemphill (“the one or more processors optionally cause a display device (e.g., via an onboard interface, LCD display, mobile device, smart phone, tablet, etc.) to display the amount, degree or level of impairment to the vehicle operator or driver,”, [019]).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19:
The combination of Heller, McGill, and Hemphill, disclose the limitations of claim 3, 10, and 17:
McGill further teaches:
wherein: the one or more substance-detecting sensors located near or on the user are determined based on the user location. Examiner interprets a vehicle sensor to be “near” the driver of the vehicle, that said, … (“In one embodiment, the operational condition sensors 122 include location sensors that use a global positioning satellite system (GPS) to determine a location of the vehicle 100. In some embodiments, real-time traffic and route information may be received over the GPS … In one embodiment, the operational condition sensors 122 include location sensors that use a global positioning satellite system (GPS) to determine a location of the vehicle 100.”, [026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Heller to incorporate the teachings of McGill because Heller would be more efficient and versatile if it could warn a smart device as to whether a vehicle driver was incapacitated and thus take action, if necessary, as was done in McGill (“More specifically, a driver intoxicated by alcohol often operates the vehicle at too slow of a speed. The intoxicated driver may also have a delayed reaction to specific events such as moving out of the way of an impending obstacle.”, [003]).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20:
The combination of Heller, McGill, and Hemphill, disclose the limitations of claim 5, 12, and 15:
McGill further teaches:
wherein determining whether the user is driving under the influence of the one or more consumed substances further comprises: determining a user motion of the user based on one or more telematics sensors on [[a]] the mobile device of the user or a user vehicle of the user; and
determining whether the user is driving based at least (“The electronic control unit 102 may determine the orientation of the driver's head relative to same point of reference (e.g., the view of a camera), and determines if movement of the driver's head relative to the point of reference indicates incapacitation of the driver. For example, a driver intoxicated by alcohol may sway or bob his or her head up and down to a degree that is much more than what would be observed when he or she is in a normal, coherent state. In another example, when the driver is drowsy from lack of sleep, the driver may tilt his or her head downwardly to momentarily rest (i.e., the driver nods off to sleep). However, after several seconds the driver usually jerks his or her head back up. In another embodiment, the driver may slump his or her head in a downward motion in response to some types of drug-induced intoxication.”, [039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Heller to incorporate the teachings of McGill because Heller would be more efficient and versatile if it could warn a smart device as to whether a vehicle driver was incapacitated and thus take action, if necessary, as was done in McGill (“More specifically, a driver intoxicated by alcohol often operates the vehicle at too slow of a speed. The intoxicated driver may also have a delayed reaction to specific events such as moving out of the way of an impending obstacle.”, [003]).
Regarding claims 7 and 14:
The combination of Heller, McGill, and Hemphill, disclose the limitations of claim 1 and 8, respectively:
Heller further teaches:
determining a discount for an insurance premium for the user based at least (“In various embodiments, storage module 160 may store a log with details of trips and/or drivers. For example, the log may include vehicle identification, the times and/or locations of the vehicle, speeds, driver identities, driver states (for example sensor outputs). For example, the log may be used by insurance to decide risk and/or rates. For example, the log may be used to derive driving statistics and/or improve policies to reduce accidents. In some embodiments, the log may be collected by legal agencies, especially for example in the case of public vehicles (e.g., buses) and/or commercial vehicles (e.g., trucks and/or cabs) and/or vehicles carrying hazardous cargos. For example, the log may be used in case of an accident to determine indemnity. For example, the log may be stored on a local memory and/or a remote memory.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form 892.
Hayward (US20210256615A1) - Techniques for implementing machine learning for insurance loss mitigation or prevention, and claims handling are disclosed. In some scenarios, the insurance loss mitigation and claims handling may be associated with a disability, worker's compensation, life or health insurance policy, and the machine-learning analytics model may be trained in accordance with data that is relevant to identifying appropriate predictions in accordance with these particular types of insurance products. For instance, the machine-learning analytics model may utilize information within a dynamic data set as training data, which may include electronically accessible information. The machine-learning analytics model may additionally be implemented to identify various predictions that are indicative of a risk of insuring an individual as well as one or more actions that, when performed, may reduce the initial calculation of risk.
Powell (US20250065898A1) – Aspects of the present invention provide a dental practice management system including associated user interfaces and methods.
Singhal (US20070024454A1) – This invention discloses a satellite based Driver Mentally Impaired (DMI) determination system for auto safety that automatically enables, (i) at the time of auto ignition by driver, the vehicle to be identified at ground station in a Driver mentally impaired (DMI) database and to activate the functions of DMI safety function, (ii) the driver to be identified via voice sample, (iii) the driver profile to be identified in the DMI database, including the time slots when the driver might be drunk, such as evening time and not morning time, (iv) a reaction time test to be conducted, which measures the reaction time responses to simple questions, (v) determine the driver's ability to drive, based on driver specific and generic reaction time profiles and (vi) permit the ignition to proceed or not, (vii) If the ignition is denied, it can be done again after a fixed time and/or a designated person and telephone number is automatically dialed and the safety situation to include driver name, vehicle location, time and degree of impairment is conveyed to.
Liang (US20130252633A1) - Methods, systems and apparatuses for automatically determining user stays of a user of a mobile device are disclosed. One embodiment includes a network server operative to receive sensed location information of a mobile device. Further, the network server and/or a controller of the mobile device are operative to determine the mobile device is within a specific distance of a specific location for at least specific minimum time duration based on the location information, determine a start time of a user stay based on the location information, the specific location and the specific distance, and determine an end time of the user stay based on the location information, the specific location and the specific distance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, M - F.
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 call examiner Cobb as above, or 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, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights