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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings(figs 3 and 8) should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 10 includes a period “.” mid-sentence, in line 3 after the term “variables”. Claims should be in single sentence form, and therefore, the period “.” after the term “variables” in line 3 should be removed. 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 11 and 20 are 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.
Claim 20 recites a limitation pertaining to a learning model that “defines a reward function……………compared to the reward from taking the first action in the first state.” A review of the claims, in light of the specification, do not appear to adequately define the claimed reward function, or reward, in a manner that would reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill. Given it plain meaning, a reward would be defined as “something that is offered or given for some service or attainment”. Based on that definition, a “reward function” would reasonably be expected to mean some form or act or procedure which would cause a reward to be attained.
A review of the specification, at paragraph [0010]) recites a reward function as being defined by a reinforcement learning model. However, the specification is silent as to exactly what is defined as a reward function. Furthermore, the specification states that the adjusted importance rating is based on an estimated value of taking a first action in a first state compared to the reward from taking the first action in the first state. The specification gives no context as to what would constitute a reward, what functions are included in a reward function that would cause a reward.
In view of this, one of ordinary skill would not understand what the terms “reward function” and “reward” actually entail, in relation to other aspects of the invention, and the claimed subject matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 20 recites the limitation "the reward" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant established “a reward function” in line 2 of the claims, however, this is a different limitation than “the reward” of line 4.
ART REJECTION:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marti et al(EP 3599124 A1).
-- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Marti et al(Marti) includes:
1) receiving at a backend portion information relating to multiple notifications is met by the third party services that provide weather, traffic, and road condition data(see: column 6, lines 43-50);
2) determining a base importance rating for one or more of the multiple notifications is met by the scheduling engine indicating a priority associated with a particular source(see: Marti, sec[0029]);
3) categorizing the notifications into multiple content classes based at least in part on the content of the notifications is met by the prioritization engine(420) analyzing received notifications, and using a set of source weighting(422)(see: Marti, sec[0029]);
4) receiving at the backend portion context relevant information would have been met by the database that provides the calls and messages receiving relevant information to be provided to the driver of the vehicle;
5) determining an adjusted importance rating for the one or more of the multiple notifications as a function of the base importance rating, class and context relevant information is met by the scheduling engine(430), predicting impact of received notifications, and determining that a given notification should be delayed or allows more immediate delivery to the driver(see: Marti, sec[0030]);
6) providing a notification from the backend portion when the adjusted importance rating satisfies an importance threshold that is based on at least part of the context relevant information is met by the engine(430) analyzing the high priority notifications into a different medium that allows more immediate delivery to the driver.
-- With regards to claim 2,
1) the base importance rating includes multiple levels of importance by which a relative importance of different ones of the multiple notifications can be determined is met by the prioritization engine analyzing notifications using a set of source weightings(422), which inherently implies multiple levels of importance.
-- With regards to claim 3,
1) the adjusted importance rating includes multiple levels of importance by which a relative importance of different ones of the multiple notifications can be determined is met by the prioritization engine(420), analyzing priority and assigning priorities to different notifications and outputs(see: Marti, sec[0029]).
-- With regards to claim 4,
1) the context relevant information includes one or more of current vehicle operating conditions, vehicle location, weather at or near the vehicle location, time and one or more user preferences would have been met by the email messages received from the boss of the driver(see: sec[0029]), constituting user preferences, since it would have been necessary to establish source weightings(422) based on user preferences.
-- With regards to claim 5,
1) the current vehicle operating conditions includes one or more of a vehicle speed, acceleration and type of road on which the vehicle is located is met by the s sensor arrays(120) gathering information from third parity services that provide road condition data(see: Marti, sec[0023]).
-- With regards to claim 6,
1) the current vehicle operating conditions includes data from one or more vehicle sensors is met by the sensor arrays(120) including kinematic and/or dynamic sensors for measuring dynamics of vehicle(140)(see: Marti, sec[0022]).
-- With regards to claim 7,
1) receiving at the backend portion information about one or more environmental conditions is met by the third party services that provide weather, traffic and road condition data(see: Marti, sec[0023]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti et al(EP 3599124 A1) in view of Li et al(USPGPUB 2019/0303197 A1).
-- With regards to claims 8-10, Marti does not teach:
1) the importance rating is determined with a gradient boosting matrix; the categorizing step is accomplished with a gradient boosting matrix; the adjusted importance rating is determined with a rules-based model that changes the base importance rating in accordance with rules for multiple variables and a reinforcement learning model.
Although a gradient boosting matrix is not specifically taught by Marti, Marti does utilize some form of rules based model that provides priority for distractions that come in for the driver of the vehicle(see: Marti, sec[0026]). In related art, Li et al uses a which provides priority scheduling for a system, wherein gradient boost tree modules are used to update priority for a system which utilizes priority for providing messages and tasks in the system(see: Li, sec[0020]). Since the use of gradient boost matrix and other forms of rules based models for rating priority is well known, as taught by Li, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to incorporate the machine learning including gradient boost as taught by Lie, into the machine learning and engines of Marti, since these would constitute an art related equivalent means of determining priority of messages in the system. As well, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the most advantageous means of determining priority of messages, that would have provided desired results in the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-19 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In related art, Yen et al(USPat 8,275,348 B2) teaches a method for managing telephone calls in a vehicle, wherein the system monitors signals provided by vehicle systems, and manages incoming telephone calls, by screening the calls so as not to distract the driver during at risk situations(see: Yen, column 3, lines 55 et seq; column 4 lines 1-5).
Massey et al(USPat 7,365,651 B2) teaches a method and apparatus for selecting a user interface, wherein a controller determines a user cognitive load experienced by a driver of a vehicle, based on receiving information from vehicle sensors. And the controller selects particular user interface modes for presenting incoming messages to the vehicle driver, such that distractions are minimized(see: column 4, lines 63 et seq; column 5, lines 1-29).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM 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 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, CURTIS A KUNTZ can be reached at 571-272-7499. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2687