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 . 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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filled on 06/16/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1,2,4-6,10,12,13 have been amended by Applicant.
Claim 14 was previously canceled by Applicant.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments / Arguments
Applicant’s 06/16/2026 amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection in this office action.
Objection to the Title of the Invention
The Objection to the Title of the Invention in the prior act is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amending the Title of the Invention as suggested by Non-Final Act 04/02/2026 at p.2.
- Response to Applicant’s argument on 112 (b) rejections -
Remarks 06/16/2026 p.7 ¶4 argues the claims were amended to windrow 112(b) rejections.
However, the 112 (b) rejection of Claim 3 is maintained pending correction from Applicant as suggested at Non-Final Act 04/02/2026 p.4 last two paragraphs.
Aside from this 112(b) rejection above, all other remaining 112 (b) rejections in the previous act are withdrawn in view of Applicant amending as suggested by Non-Final Act 04/02/2026 p2-p4.
- Response to Applicant’s argument on 103 rejection -
Remarks 06/16/2026 p.7¶5-p.8 ¶2 argues the newly amended Claims 1,12,13 are not taught or suggested by the cited prior art at Non-Final Act 04/02/2026.
Examiner fully considered the argument which is moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
= as per independent Claims 1,13 =
Tsuzuki/McClellan combination teaches a manager, instructor or mentor assessing another person, callee, or subordinate (i.e. a driver of a vehicle), yet the manager, instructor or mentor in Tsuzuki / McClellan does not necessarily entrust or bet “that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem” as claimed at limitation the last limitation “wherein the reliability of the manager increases in a case where the manager has determined that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem”1 of independent Claims 1,13. Nevertheless,
Demino et al US 20120295698 A1 in analogous assessing driver aptitudes teaches/suggest
- determine[s] [or bets] “that the” [driver] … “will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem” as claimed
(Demino ¶ [0033] 4th, 6th sentences: Thus, during Friday qualifications, bettors can wager on predicting whether a driver will crash during qualification. Race day wagers can also be extended to include wagers on whether… the entire race will run without a crash… ¶ [0034] last sentence: Finally, in step 890, once the action has been completed (i.e. completion of …NASCAR event), payouts are made to bettors who correctly predicted the outcome of the action, such as driver ran without a crash, as identified at ¶ [0033] 4th, 6th sentences above).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsuzuki / McClellan’s teachings to have included Demino’s teachings or suggestions to have provided a more equitable process of rewarding or recognizing correct decision making processes (Demino ¶ [0033]-¶ [0034 in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F]) even in situations necessitating large payouts for small wagers (Demino ¶ [0029] 4th sentence in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). Predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the fact that each and all of Tsuzuki/McClellan and Demino assess the user’s (i.e. driver) aptitudes, no matter of how such assessment is intended to be used, such as in a work or performance-based training setting as per Tsuzuki/McClellan or in a setting that is conducive of rewarding the correct decision of picking the driver that turns out not to cause a problem as per Demino. Thus, consistent with MPEP 2141.01(a) I, each of Tsuzuki, McClellan and Demino are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are: (1) from the same field of endeavor of assessing user (i.e. driver) aptitudes; or (2) they are reasonably pertinent to the analysis and consequences or the assessment (even if, in the arguendo, they would not be in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Examiner corroborates such analogous test and rationale by relying on MPEP 2141.01(a) IV which cites In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325-26, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211-12 (Fed. Cir. 2004) where the patent application claimed a "hair brush" having a specific bristle configuration. The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of the claims as being obvious in view of prior art patents disclosing toothbrushes. Id. at 1323, 72 USPQ2d at 1210. The appellant disputed that the patent references constituted analogous art. On appeal, the court upheld the Board’s interpretation of the claim term hair brush to encompass any brush that may be used for any bodily hair, including facial hair. Id. at 1323-24, 72 USPQ2d at 1211. With this claim interpretation, the court applied the "field of endeavor test" for analogous art and determined that the references were within the field of the inventor’s endeavor and hence were analogous art because toothbrushes are structurally similar to small brushes for hair, and a toothbrush could be used to brush facial hair. Id. at 1326, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. Since the Court established that use of a toothbrush as hairbrush, did contravene the analogous rationale, the Examiner similarly reasons that here, assessment of user (i.e. driver) aptitudes, no matter of how such assessment is intended to be used, would also not render their modification or combination improper in a manner consistent with the Bigio test above.
Further, the claimed invention can also be viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor of identifying relationships between business entities (i.e. manager-callee) and assessing the callee’s (i.e. driver) aptitudes. In such combination each element merely would have performed same identification, analysis assessment, and its related future recognition function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tsuzuki, McClellan in view of Demino, the to be combined results would have fitted together, like puzzle pieces in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the combination results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
* Further still *
Tsuzuki / McClellan / Demino while rewarding, and thus giving recognition, “in a case where the” [user or] manager has determined that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem”,
* Nevertheless *
Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino does not explicitly equate such cashout recognition or rewarding with “reliability” when the manager has [predicted or] “determined that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem” as claimed.
* However *
Gardner et al US 20070011073 A1 in analogous recognition of correct predictions teaches or suggests such recognition as increased the proficiency, accuracy or “reliability” of the user.
Gardner ¶ [0163] In step 758, the proficiency score for user is calculated. The proficiency score can be calculated each time a contest entry score is determined or after a predetermined time period. In an embodiment, proficiency score is given by the following equation: proficiency score=W1 ·W2 ·W3…W n·(W A 19 accuracy+W B·total score). Accuracy represents percentage of times the user is correct in predicting items in a contest. In an embodiment, accuracy is determined according to the following equation: Accuracy =
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
p
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
a
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
c
o
n
t
e
s
t
e
n
t
i
r
e
s
i
n
a
c
o
n
t
e
s
t
. The total score is the summation of the contest entry scores for the user in the contest. As would be appreciated by persons of skill in the art, other techniques for determining the proficiency score, accuracy, and/or total score can be used with the present invention).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further explained or at least have complementarily modified the rewarding or awarding of correct prediction in the combination of Tsuzuki/McClellan / Demino as a form of recognition of “reliability” for such prediction as further taught or clarified by Gardner ¶ [0163]-¶ [0180], as incentivized by the need to have provided a better or more precise intelligence for the prediction (Gardner ¶ [0122] 3rd sentence in view of MPEP 2143 G), while, at the same time, also having recognized and given credit where credit is due, by use of qualificatives such as: “all star”, “king of the hill” etc. (Gardner ¶ [0179]-¶ [0180] in view of MPEP 2143 G). The predictability of such modification would have also been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as further articulated by Gardner ¶ [0008], ¶ [0312].
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of rewarding or awarding correct predictions. In such combination each element would have merely performed same analytical, assessment, and crediting function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tsuzuki / McClellan / Demino in view of Gardner, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like puzzle pieces in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the combination results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
= similarly to the above, as per independent Claim 12 =
Tsuzuki / McClellan / Dvoskin / Jeon combination teaches a manager, instructor or mentor assessing another person, callee, or subordinate (i.e. a driver of a vehicle), yet the manager, instructor or mentor in Tsuzuki / McClellan / Dvoskin / Jeon does not necessarily entrust or bet or - determine[..] that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem” as claimed at limitation “wherein the reliability of the manager increases in a case where the manager has determined that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem”2, as claimed.
Demino et al US 20120295698 A1 in analogous assessing driver aptitudes teaches/suggest:
- determine[s] [or bets] “that the” [driver] … “will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem” as claimed
(Demino ¶ [0033] 4th, 6th sentences: Thus, during Friday qualifications, bettors can wager on predicting whether a driver will crash during qualification. Race day wagers can also be extended to include wagers on whether… the entire race will run without a crash… ¶ [0034] last sentence: Finally, in step 890, once the action has been completed (i.e. completion of …NASCAR event), payouts are made to bettors who correctly predicted the outcome of the action, such as driver ran without a crash, as identified at ¶ [0033] 4th, 6th sentences above).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsuzuki/McClellan/Dvoskin/Jeon’s teachings to have included Demino’s teachings or suggestions to have provided a more equitable process of rewarding or recognizing correct decision making processes (Demino ¶ [0033]-¶ [0034 in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F]) even in situations of large payouts for small wagers (Demino ¶ [0029] 4th sentence in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the fact that each and all of Tsuzuki / McClellan / Dvoskin / Jeon and Demino assess the user’s (i.e. driver) aptitudes, no matter of how such assessment is intended to be used, such as in a work or performance-based training setting as per Tsuzuki / McClellan / Dvoskin / Jeon or in a setting conducive of rewarding the correct decision of picking the driver that turns out not to cause a problem as per Demino. Thus, consistent with MPEP 2141.01(a) I, each of Tsuzuki / McClellan / Dvoskin / Jeon and Demino are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are: (1) from the same field of endeavor of assessing user (i.e. driver) aptitudes; or (2) they are reasonably pertinent to the analysis and consequences or the assessment (even if, in the arguendo, they would not be in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Examiner corroborates analogous rationale by relying on MPEP 2141.01(a) IV which cites In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325-26, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211-12 (Fed. Cir. 2004) where the patent application claimed a "hair brush" having a specific bristle configuration. The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of the claims as being obvious in view of prior art patents disclosing toothbrushes. Id. at 1323, 72 USPQ2d at 1210. The appellant disputed that the patent references constituted analogous art. On appeal, the court upheld the Board’s interpretation of the claim term "hair brush" to encompass any brush that may be used for any bodily hair, including facial hair. Id. at 1323-24, 72 USPQ2d at 1211. With this claim interpretation, the court applied the "field of endeavor test" for analogous art and determined that the references were within the field of the inventor’s endeavor and hence were analogous art because toothbrushes are structurally similar to small brushes for hair, and a toothbrush could be used to brush facial hair. Id. at 1326, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. Since the Court established that use of a toothbrush as hair brush, did contravene the analogous rationale, the Examiner similarly reasons that here, the assessment of use (i.e. driver) aptitudes, no matter of how such assessment is intended to be used, would also not render their modification or combination improper in a manner consistent with the Bigio test.
Further, the claimed invention can also be viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor of identifying relationships between business entities (i.e. manager-callee) and assessing the callee’s (i.e. driver) aptitudes. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same identification, analysis assessment, and its related future recognition function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing ability to combine the elements as evidenced above by Tsuzuki / McClellan / Dvoskin / Jeon in further view of Demino, the to be combined results would have fitted together, like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
* Further still *
Tsuzuki / McClellan / Dvoskin / Jeon / Demino while recognizing or rewarding: “in a case where the” [user or] manager has determined that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem”
Tsuzuki / McClellan / Dvoskin / Jeon / Demino does not equate such cashout rewarding with “reliability” has” [predicted or] “determined that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem” as claimed. Nevertheless,
Gardner et al, US 20070011073 A1 in analogous recognition of correct predictions teach or suggests such recognition as increased the proficiency, accuracy or “reliability” of the user.
Gardner ¶ [0163] In step 758, the proficiency score for user is calculated. The proficiency score can be calculated each time a contest entry score is determined or after a predetermined time period. In an embodiment, proficiency score is given by the following equation: proficiency score=W1 ·W2 ·W3…W n·(W A 19 accuracy+W B·total score). Accuracy represents percentage of times the user is correct in predicting items in a contest. In an embodiment, accuracy is determined according to the following equation: Accuracy =
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
p
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
a
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
c
o
n
t
e
s
t
e
n
t
i
r
e
s
i
n
a
c
o
n
t
e
s
t
. The total score is the summation of the contest entry scores for the user in the contest. As would be appreciated by persons of skill in the art, other techniques for determining the proficiency score, accuracy, and/or total score can be used with the present invention).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified or explained that the rewarding or awarding of correct prediction in the combination of Tsuzuki/McClellan/Dvoskin/Jeon/ Demino is a form of recognition of “reliability” for such prediction as further clarified by Gardner ¶ [0163]-¶ [0180], incentivized by the need to have provide a better or more precise intelligence (Gardner ¶ [0122] 3rd sentence in view of MPEP 2143 G), while, at the same time, also having recognized and given credit where credit is due, by qualificative such as “all star”, “king of the hill” etc. (Gardner ¶ [0179]-¶ [0180] in view of MPEP 2143 G). The predictability of such modification would have also been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as further articulated by Gardner ¶ [0008], ¶ [0312]. Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor that recognizes correct predictions. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same analytical, assessment, and crediting function as separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tsuzuki/McClellan/Dvoskin / Jeon/Demino in further view of Gardner, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like puzzle pieces in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
- Response to Applicant’s argument on 101 rejection -
= independent claim 12 =
Step 2A prong one: Remarks 06/16/2026 p.9 ¶2 argues that by utilizing three separate devices, the independent claim 12 reduces the memory required for storing and processing face images in the callee terminal and improves the efficiency in processing a face image, thus tying the claimed invention not a practical application.
Examiner fully considered the Step 2A prong one argument but respectfully disagrees
Examiner reincorporates herein all finding and rationales at Non-Final Act 04/02/2026 p.5-p.7 ¶1 that the claims recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception. Furthermore,
Examiner notes that the newly added expression “wherein the reliability of the manager increases in a case where the manager has determined that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem” [bolded emphasis added] as amended at independent Claim 12, can be argued to have limited patentable weight as per the wherein clause test of MPEP 2111.04 I, the contingent clause test of MPEP 2111.04 II and/or the intended use or result test of USPTO’s training entitled Focus on Computer/Software-related Claims dated May 2015 slides 16-17,20-21, which cites MPEP 2111.04.
Examiner however submits, in the arguendo, that even when considered to have patentable weight, the amended expression “wherein the reliability of the manager increases in a case where the manager has determined that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem”, is not an additional element of Step 2A prong two or Step 2B, but rather a constituent integral to the abstract exception itself, namely a manager entrusting or vouching for a subordinate such as a “callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call”, and then with such a recognition that such “manager” was reliable when making the correct decision-making, as “determined” [when] “the callee does not actually cause a problem”. These can be argued as part of the abstract observation, evaluation judgment and opinions of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2 and/or the abstract managing behavior or relationships of interactions between people of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C.
Examiner next addresses the three separate devices, as argued by Applicant at Remarks 06/16/2026 p.9 ¶2 and resubmits that such three terminals namely: “callee terminal”, “information processing apparatus”, and “manager terminal” as identified by Non-Final Act 06/16/2026 p.8 represent mere invocation of computer components or other machinery as tools to apply abstract processes, which according to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. For example, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1 states that the use of a computer or other machinery for economic or other tasks such as: to receive, store and transmit data, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application3. Similarly, according to the same MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1 the combination or a server or computer with a digital camera, used in ordinary capacity to take, manage and transmit those images, including receiving data, extracting classification information from the received data, and storing the digital images based on the extracted information4 merely apply the abstract exception without integrating it into a practical application. It then follows the here, as recited at independent Claim 12, the analogous capabilities of “the callee terminal” “to generate a current face image of a callee by imaging the callee” and the capabilities of the “information processing apparatus” to “acquire the current face image of the callee from the callee terminal” and “acquire the previous face image of the callee”, do constitute, along with the capabilities of the “callee” and “manager” terminals to “store instructions” and the analogous capabilities of the “information processing apparatus” to “store a previous face image of the callee in association with the callee, in a storage unit” and “display a screen to present the image based on the current face image of the callee and the previous face image of the callee for the manager”, examples of additional elements (here terminals), which perform analogous functions to the aforementioned combination of server, computer with digital camera, to take, manage and transmit those images, including receiving data, extracting classification information from the received data, and storing the digital images based on the extracted information5 that merely apply the abstract idea without integrating it into a practical application.
Also, as stated by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1, even claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer would not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept6. For example, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) iii7 states that a process for monitoring audit log data executed on a computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from capabilities of the general-purpose computer8 is an example of invoking computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Similarly, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (v)9 states that requiring use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, is another example of invoking computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
It then follows that here, the capabilities of “information processing apparatus” to “acquire”
audit log data such as: “manager reliability information indicating reliability of a manger who performs a roll call” and “callee reliability information indicating reliability of a callee who receives the roll call” (dependent Claim 12) constitute, along with the capabilities of the “manager terminal” to “display a screen to present the image based on the current face image of the callee and the previous face image of the callee for the manager” (dependent Claim 12), examples of invoking computers or machinery as a tool which would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as tested under at least MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) iii and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) v above. More to the point, according to MPEP 2106.05(h) vi, even limiting or narrowing the combination of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to a field of use or technological environment does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application10. It follows that here, narrowing the combination of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, as identified above, to a technological environment as represented by the “callee”, “manager” and “information processing apparatus” terminals etc. could also be argued as narrowing the abstract exception to a field of use, with respect to the aforementioned abstract exception.
Based on the preponderance of legal evidence, as demonstrated above, it is clear that the three separate devices as argued at Remarks 06/16/2026 p.9 ¶2 do not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Remarks 06/16/2026 p.9 ¶3 argues that as explained above the claims recite a technical implementation for solving a specific technical problem. In addition, it is argued that the amended claims recites a specific combination of operations, where such combination is not taught by the cited references. Examiner fully considered the Step 2B above but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive by reincorporating herein, the findings and rationales of Non-Final Act 04/02/2026 p.9 ¶4-p.10 ¶3 by resubmitting that the additional computer-based elements merely apply the already recited abstract concepts and/or link use of the abstract exception to a field of use or technological environment. Specifically, the Examiner follows MPEP 2106.05 (d) II guidelines and carries over the findings tested per MPEP 2106.05 (f) and/or (h) to submit that the additional, computer-based elements also do not provide significantly more.
Remarks 06/16/2026 p9 ¶3, argues the claims recite a technical implementation for solving a specific technical problem, with the argued combination is not taught by the cited references.
Yet, upon closer investigation the Examiner finds that both the problem and its underlining solution of task management in identifying and then determining reliability between business entities upon a roll call, namely the manger who performs the roll call as a caller and the callee assessed to drive the vehicle, as read in light of Original Specification ¶ [0002]-¶ [0008], are abstract right from the onset as directed to fundamental practices [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A] and the management of their underlining interactions and relationships between people [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C], with the term fundamental, explained by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A ¶2 as not used in the sense of being old or well-known but rather as building blocks of modern economy. Examiner also submits, in the arguendo, that even if novel (35 USC 102) and non-obviousness (35 USC 103), the argued feature(s), would still pertain to features that are abstract, and thus incapable to integrate the abstract exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than what was already identified as the abstract exception. Simply put, these argued feature(s) do not render the claims patent eligible (35 USC 101) no matter of their purported novelty (35 USC 102) and non-obviousness (35 USC 103) over the prior art. See for example MPEP 2106.04 I ¶5, 3rd sentence citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 "the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”.
Here, any implementation for solving the task management in identifying business entities (i.e. here manager and callee), allowing such business entities to communicate, then determining reliability between business entities (i.e. manager and the callee) upon a roll call, would represent such building blocks of modern economy no matter whether or not their underlining solution would be old, well-known, or taught by the prior art. Simply said, as demonstrated by MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), “improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology”. Similarly, MPEP 2106.04 I. cites “Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979” to underline that even a “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery” [akin to what is argued here at Remarks 06/16/2026 p.9 ¶3] “does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry" as corroborated by “SAP Am, Inc v InvestPic, LLC, No 2017-2081, 2018 BL 275354 (Fed. Cir.Aug.02, 2018)”: “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant”, [akin to what is argued here Remarks 06/16/2026 p.9 ¶3] “those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter” [here improving abstract “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes”]. “An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”. Simply said here, as in “SAP” supra, “no matter how much of [such] an advance in the field” “the claims [would] recite the advance [would still] lie entirely in the realm of abstract ideas” with no plausibly alleged innovation in non-abstract application realm. This finding was corroborated by “Versata Dev Grp, Inc v SAP Am, Inc 115 USPQ2d 1681 Fed Cir 2015” undelaying the difference between improvement to entrepreneurial goal or objective versus improvement to actual technology. MPEP 2106.04.
Here, the argued solution of task management disclosed in the claims as identifying business entities (i.e. here manager and the callee), allowing such business entities to communicate, and then determining reliability between business entities (i.e. the manager and the callee) upon a roll call, would represent such entrepreneurial improvement established at the claimed roll call.
Also, the underlining devices or terminals of such entities would represent tools to apply the aforementioned business processes, as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or a narrowing of the abstract concepts to a technological environment or field of use, as tested per MPEP 2106.05(h), which would not provide significantly more than what was already established as abstract.
Based on the preponderance of legal evidence shown above, the Examiner resubmits that the argued claim still recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception (Step 2A prong one), with no additional elements being capable either alone or in combination to integrate the abstract exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, the argued claim is found to be patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 still recites, among others “assign a manager” rendering said claim 3 vague and indefinite because it is unclear if “a manager” as subsequently recited in said claim 3 relates back to antecedently recited “a manager” and “the manager” at parent Claims 1 and 2.
Claim 3 is recommended to be amended to recite, among others: assign [[a]] the manager
Clarifications and/or corrections are required.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, here abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) describe or set forth the abstract fundamental practices (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A), and/or interactions or relationships (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II B) and managing such interactions or relationships (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C), read in light of known patent literature cited by Original Specification ¶ [0002]- ¶ [0004]. These are set forth in the current claims by “acquiring manager reliability information indicating reliability of a manager who performs a roll call”; (independent Claims 1,12,13) and “identifying the manager who actually performs the roll call, as a caller, based on the manager reliability information” (independent Claims 1,13), “acquire callee reliability information indicating reliability of a callee who receives the roll call” (dependent Claim 2, independent Claim 12), “assign the manager as the caller, to a callee, on the based on the manager reliability information and the callee reliability information” (dependent Claim 2, independent Claim 12), “assign a manager with the reliability of the manager that is greater than or equal to a second predetermined value, as the caller, to the callee, when the reliability of the callee is less than or equal to a first predetermined value” (dependent Claim 3), “assign one of a plurality of managers, as the caller, to the callee, based on a period when each of the plurality of managers is not assigned to the callee” (dependent Claim 4), “determine matters to be confirmed with the callee in the roll call, based on the reliability of the callee” (dependent Claim 6), “permit the callee to perform a roll call that does not involve the caller, when the reliability of the callee is greater than or equal to a third predetermined value” (dependent Claim 7), “when there is an abnormality in a vehicle scheduled to be driven by the callee, notifies notify a mechanic for the vehicle of the abnormality” (dependent Claim 8). It is also noted that the “reliability” as preponderantly and repeatedly recited in the above claims, when read in light of Original Specification mid-¶ [0060], ¶ [0067], ¶ [0069] refers to past driving performance, problems, past accidents, working attitude etc. with the acquire[d] biometric information on the callee; used to “estimate a state of the callee on the basis of the biometric information; and present the state estimated to the caller” read in light of Original Specification ¶ [0067] as possibly related to “detect expiration alcohol concentration of the driver and to obtain an alcohol concentration value (an alcohol test result). The body surface thermometer 105 is configured to acquire a body surface temperature value of the driver. The sphygmomanometer 106 is configured to acquire the blood pressure of the driver”. Yet, in Vehicle Intelligence & Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, as cited by USPTO’s 35 U.S.C. 101 Examination Guidance and Training Materials, Section C. Information about Judicial Decisions Subsection 1. Subject Matter Eligibility Court Decisions, Row #74, where the Court found that testing operators of any kind of moving equipment for any kind of physical or mental impairment falls within the realm of abstract idea. It then follows that here, similar to Vehicle Intelligence supra, the testing, upon a roll call, by a manager or caller of callee or driver (Claims 1-4,12-13) or even self-testing of callee when reliability of the callee is greater than or equal to a third predetermined value (Claim 7), recites, describes or sets forth the abstract testing of operators of moving equipment for physical or mental reliability in a manner not meaningfully different than that of Vehicle Intelligence supra.
As per newly amended recitation of “wherein the reliability of the manager increases in a case where the manager has determined that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem”, (independent Claims 1,12,13) the Examiner interprets sch limitation as a manager entrusting or vouching for a subordinate such as a “callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call”, and then with such recognizing such “manager” as being reliable when making the correct decision-making, “determined” [when] “the callee does not actually cause a problem”. These, can be argued as part of the abstract observation, evaluation judgment and opinions of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2 and/or the abstract managing behavior or relationships of interactions between people of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C.
As per recitation of “authenticate the callee based the acquired current face image of the callee from the storage unit, and present an image based on the current face image of the callee and the previous face image of the callee” (dependent Claim 10,12), “display a difference between the current face image and the previous face image of the callee, on at least one of the current face image and the previous face image of the callee” (dependent Claim 11) and similarly “display a screen to present the image based on the current face image of the callee and the previous face image of the callee for the manager” (dependent Claim 12), a case can be made that such image based authentication remains integral to the abstract fundamental practices [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A] and/or commercial or legal relationships or interactions [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II B] of the abstract Certain Methods of organizing Human Activities grouping, with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶6, 4th sentence, clarifying that activity between a person and a computer may fall within the abstract Certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Additionally, or alternatively such screen or computer-based authentic[ation] can perhaps also be argued as mental or manual processes of judgment ensuing from an observation and subsequent evaluation, consistent with the observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions of the abstract mental processes grouping of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2. It is also worth noting that computer-aided operations of such observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, as mapped to the above claims, does not preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting for the abstract exception because according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C: #1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer, # 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment and/or #3. Using a computer as tool to perform a mental process, still recite the abstract exception. Thus here, use of “storage unit” at Claims 10,12 from which the “current face image” is acquir[ed] and the “screen” upon which to “display” “to present the image based on the current face image of the callee and the previous face image of the callee for the manager” at Claim 12, can be argued, along with the callee and manager teminal(s), information processing apparatus and “external apparatus” of independent Claim 12 to be such: #1 generic computer, #2 computer environment and/or #3 computer tool to aid in performing the abstract processes above. For example, the superimpos[ing] and display a difference between the current face image and the previous face image of the callee, on at least one of the current face image and the previous face image of the callee” at dependent Claim 11 can be viewed as akin to, or not meaningfully different than manual pen rotoscoping or tracing frame-by-frame, back and forward, on a superimposed on a stack of papers. This finding is corroborated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to state that collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, does recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception. It then follows that here, the ensuing display of certain results of the collection and analysis as represented by “display a difference between the current face image and the previous face image of the callee, on at least one of the current face image and the previous face image of the callee” (dependent Claim 11) / “display a screen to present the image based on the current face image of the callee and the previous face image of the callee for the manager” (dependent Claim 12), and similarly “display a route map of a vehicle driven by the callee, and highlight at least one of a vehicle driven by a callee who is judged by the caller to be a suspicious person and a vehicle driven by a callee with low reliability” (dependent Claim 9), would similarly, recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception or at very least, not preclude recitation, description or setting forth of said abstract exception. In an abundance of caution, Examiner will more granularly test the involvement of such computerization at the subsequent steps below. For now, it is clear that, given the preponderance of legal evidence shown above, the character a whole of the claims is undeniably abstract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because per Step 2A prong two, the individual, or combination, of the additional, computer-based elements are represented by recitations of “memory” and “processor” (Claims 1-12) and possibly and arguably “storage unit” from expression “from storage unit” (dependent Claim 10, independent Claim 12), and “screen” (independent Claims 12), as well as the callee and manager teminals, information processing apparatus and “external apparatus” (independent Claim 12) etc. When tested at step 2A prong two, they are found to merely apply the above abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and/or narrow it to a field of use or technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(h)]. Here, such elements represent computerized elements which, if not altogether abstract as computer-aids, as identified and tested at the prior step above, would at most constitute additional computer-based elements which would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, here, even when tested as additional computer-based elements, per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i) the “memory” “processor”, apparatuses and terminals above would merely apply the aforementioned abstract roll-call business practice. Moreover, as stated by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1, the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks to receive, store and transmit data, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application11. Similarly, according to the same MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1 the combination or a server or computer with a digital camera, used in ordinary capacity to take, manage and transmit those images, including receiving data, extracting classification information from the received data, and storing the digital images based on the extracted information12 merely apply the abstract exception without integrating it into a practical application. It would then follow the here, the analogous capabilities to “store a previous face image of the callee in association with the callee, in a storage unit” and “display a screen to present the image based on the current face image of the callee and the previous face image of the callee for the manager” at independent Claim 12 similarly apply the abstract idea without integrating it into a practical application. Equally important, as stated by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1, even claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer would not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept13. For example, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) iii14 states that a process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from capabilities of the general-purpose computer15 is an example of invoking computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Similarly, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (v)16 states that requiring use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, is another example of invoking computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It then follows that here, monitoring or auditing reliability of “caller” (i.e “manager”) and “callee” (i.e. “driver”) and tailoring information and provide it by “display a difference between the current face image and the previous face image of the callee, on at least one of the current face image and the previous face image of the callee” (dependent Claim 11) / “display a screen to present the image based on the current face image of the callee and the previous face image of the callee for the manager” (dependent Claim 12), and similarly “display a route map of a vehicle driven by the callee, and highlight at least one of a vehicle driven by a callee who is judged by the caller to be a suspicious person and a vehicle driven by a callee with low reliability” (dependent Claim 9), would similarly represent examples of invoking computers or machinery as a tool which would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as tested under at least MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) iii and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) v above. More to the point, according to MPEP 2106.05(h) vi, even limiting the combination of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to a field of sue or technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application17. It then follows that here, the narrowing of the combination of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, as identified above, to a technological environment as represented by “memory”, “processor”, “storage”, “screen” etc. could also be argued as narrowing the abstract idea to a field of use, with respect to the aforementioned abstract exception.
Thus, no matter which of the MPEP 2106.05(f) or (h) tests are employed, the result is the same, namely, that no additional elements integrate, either alone or in combination, the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2A prong two.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as shown above, the additional computer-based elements merely apply the already recited abstract idea and/or link use of the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment. Specifically, Examiner follows MPEP 2106.05 (d) II guidelines and carries over the findings tested per MPEP 2106.05 (f) and/or (h) to submit that the additional computer-based elements also do not provide significantly more without having to rely on conventionality test of MPEP 2106.05(d). Yet, assuming arguendo, that further evidence would be required to demonstrate conventionality of the additional, computer-based elements, Examiner would point as evidence to the high level of generality of such additional elements read in light of Disclosure. MPEP 2106.05(d).I.2: “in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional”. Here
- Original Specification ¶ [0020] recites at high level of generality: “The arithmetic apparatus 21 includes at least one of a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), and a FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array), for example. The arithmetic apparatus 21 reads a computer program. For example, arithmetic apparatus 21 may read a computer program stored in the storage apparatus 22. For example, the arithmetic apparatus 21 may read a computer program stored by a computer-readable and non-transitory recording medium, by using a not-illustrated recording medium reading apparatus provided in the information processing apparatus 2 (e.g., the input apparatus 24 described later). The arithmetic apparatus 21 may acquire (i.e., download or read) a computer program from a not-illustrated apparatus disposed outside the information processing apparatus 2, through the communication apparatus 23 (or another communication apparatus). The arithmetic apparatus 21 executes the read computer program. Consequently, a logical functional block for performing an operation to be performed by the information processing apparatus 2 is realized or implemented in the arithmetic apparatus 21. That is, the arithmetic apparatus 21 is allowed to function as a controller for realizing or implementing the logical functional block for performing an operation (in other words, a process) to be performed by the information processing apparatus 2”.
Given the legal determination above and/or high level of generality of the additional computer-based elements, as read in light of the Applicant’s own Original Disclosure, the Examiner submits that such additional elements also do not provide significantly more.
In conclusion, Claims 1-13 although directed to statutory categories (“apparatus” or machine at Claims 1-11, “system” or machine at Claim 12, and “method” or process at Claim 13) they still recite, or at least describe or set forth the abstract idea (Step 2A prong one), with their additional, computer-based elements not integrating it into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B). Thus Claims 1-13 are ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rejections under 35 § U.S.C. 103
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 of this title, 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Tsuzuki et al, US 20110277537 A1 hereinafter Tsuzuki, in view of
McClellan et al, US 20080319602 A1 hereinafter McClellan, in view of
Demino et al US 20120295698 A1 hereinafter Demino, and in further view of
Gardner et al, US 20070011073 A1 hereinafter Gardner. As per,
Claims 1,13 Tsuzuki teaches “An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to”: / “A task management system comprising: a callee terminal at least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to” (Tsuzuki ¶ [0037[, ¶ [0042] ¶ [0077]-¶ [0078], ¶ [0090]-¶ [0091]) / “An information processing method comprising:
- “acquire manager a roll call”; (Tsuzuki ¶ [0019] Fig.1 is a block diagram of a roll call system. ¶ [0104] last sentence: since the call manager can perform the call while confirming the appearance of the to-be-called person and making dialog with the to-be-called person, the call manager can perform the call while feeling the physical condition and the like of the to-be-called person from the way of dialog, the voice, the facial color, the eyes, and the like of the to-be-called person. ¶ [0056] 2nd sentence: The number of calls processed at the same time is equal to the number of call managers who perform a call, that is, equal to the number of call side devices 20. ¶ [0057] When a call is delayed because many to-be-called persons are registered in the call waiting list, a carrier employing the roll call system 10 can overcome the delay by additionally employing the number of the call side devices 20 and the number of the call managers who use the call side devices 20) “and”
- “identify the manager who actually performs the roll call, as a caller, based on the manager (Tsuzuki ¶ [0047]…in Fig.4, the call screen includes…a call manager region 82 showing the image of the call manager… ¶ [0049] The image shown in the call manager region 82 is an image picked up by the video camera 23. ¶ [0056] 2nd sentence: The number of calls which can be processed at the same time is equal to the number of call managers who perform a call, that is, equal to the number of the call side devices 20. ¶ [0057] When a call is delayed because many to-be-called persons are registered in the call waiting list, a carrier employing the roll call system 10 can overcome the delay by additionally employing the number of the call side devices 20 and the number of the call managers who use the call side devices 20)
* While *
Tsuzuki ¶ [0047]-¶ [0054] teaches a call manager having authority to place a roll call for a to-be-called person [or callee] about driving aptitudes, Tsuzuki does not go as far to attribute the authority of such manager on “basis of the manager reliability” as previously acquired.
* However *
McClellan however in analogues art of monitoring driver performance based on a driving manager or instructor teaches or suggests: “manager reliability information” required by:
- “acquire manager reliability information indicating reliability of a manager
- “identify the manager…based on the manager reliability information”
(McClellan ¶ [0054] 2nd-4th, 6th,7th sentences: In step 501, a vehicle monitoring system is installed and training mode is started. In step 502, the vehicle is operated by…a driving instructor or other experienced driver [interpreted as driving manager] in training mode during training period. In step 503, the vehicle monitoring system observes all or selected vehicle parameters during the training period… In step 504, the vehicle monitoring system creates an acceptable driving profile based upon the observed parameters. The…experienced [or reliable] driver may review the acceptable driving profile parameters and thresholds in step 505… The monitoring mode is started in step 507, and from that point on, in step 508, the monitoring device provides mentoring and warning messages to the driver based upon selected acceptable driving profile).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsuzuki’s “apparatus” / “method” to have included McClellan’s teachings and ensuing suggestions to have increased versatility or customization of the manager or instructor with respect to the to be monitored drivers for a more accurate monitoring with the ultimate goal to ensure expertise or reliability of the instructor or the manager , while at the same time improve safety standards including those for the driver itself (McClellan ¶ [0050], ¶ [0054] in view of MPEP 21342 G and/or F). This would have been especially desirable in dealing with many to-be-called persons (Tsuzuki ¶ [0038]-¶ [0039]) such as drivers of a fleet of vehicles (McClellan ¶ [0034], ¶ [0044]-¶ [0046]). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skills of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by McClellan at ¶ [0056]. Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor dealing with tracking or managing the performance of a task. In such combination each element would have merely performed same analytical monitoring and managerial function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tsuzuki in view of McClellan, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or econocmailly desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have also been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Tsuzuki / McClellan combination teaches a manager or mentor assessing person such as a driver of a vehicle, yet Tsuzuki / McClellan does not necessarily entrust or bet or
- determine[..] that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem” as claimed at limitation “wherein the reliability of the manager increases in a case where the manager has determined that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem”18,
Demino in analogous art of assessing user (i.e. driver) aptitudes teaches or suggests:
- determine[s] [or bets] “that the” [driver] … “will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem” as claimed
(Demino ¶ [0033] 4th, 6th sentences: Thus, during Friday qualifications, bettors can wager on predicting whether a driver will crash during qualification. Race day wagers can also be extended to include wagers on whether… the entire race will run without a crash… ¶ [0034] last sentence: Finally, in step 890, once the action has been completed (i.e. completion of …NASCAR event), payouts are made to bettors who correctly predicted the outcome of the action, such as driver ran without a crash, as identified at ¶ [0033] 4th, 6th sentences above).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsuzuki / McClellan’s teachings to have included Demino’s teachings or suggestions to have provided a more equitable process of rewarding or recognizing correct decision making processes (Demino ¶ [0033]-¶ [0034 in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F]) even in situations of large payouts for small wagers (Demino ¶ [0029] 4th sentence in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the fact that each and all of Tsuzuki/McClellan and Demino assess the user’s (i.e. driver) aptitudes, no matter of how such assessment is intended to be used, such as in a work or performance-based training setting as per Tsuzuki/McClellan or in a setting conducive of rewarding the correct decision of picking the driver that turns out not to cause a problem as per Demino. Thus, consistent with MPEP 2141.01(a) I, each of Tsuzuki, McClellan and Demino are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are: (1) from the same field of endeavor of assessing user (i.e. driver) aptitudes; or (2) they are reasonably pertinent to the analysis and consequences or the assessment (even if, in the arguendo, they would not be in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Examiner corroborates analogous rationale by relying on MPEP 2141.01(a) IV which cites In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325-26, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211-12 (Fed. Cir. 2004) where the patent application claimed a "hair brush" having a specific bristle configuration. The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of the claims as being obvious in view of prior art patents disclosing toothbrushes. Id. at 1323, 72 USPQ2d at 1210. The appellant disputed that the patent references constituted analogous art. On appeal, the court upheld the Board’s interpretation of the claim term hair brush to encompass any brush that may be used for any bodily hair, including facial hair. Id. at 1323-24, 72 USPQ2d at 1211. With this claim interpretation, the court applied the "field of endeavor test" for analogous art and determined that the references were within the field of the inventor’s endeavor and hence were analogous art because toothbrushes are structurally similar to small brushes for hair, and a toothbrush could be used to brush facial hair. Id. at 1326, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. Since the Court established that use of a toothbrush as hairbrush, did contravene the analogous rationale, the Examiner similarly reasons that here, assessment of user (i.e. driver) aptitudes, no matter of how such assessment is intended to be used, would also not render their modification or combination improper in a manner consistent with the Bigio test above.
Further, the claimed invention can also be viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor of identifying relationships between business entities (i.e. manager-callee) and assessing the callee’s (i.e. driver) aptitudes. In such combination each element merely would have performed same identification, analysis, assessmen, and its related future recognition function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tsuzuki, McClellan in view of Demino, the to be combined results would have fitted together, like puzzle pieces in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the combination results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
* Further still *
Tsuzuki / McClellan / Demino while recognizing or rewarding: “in a case where the” [user or] manager has determined that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem”
* Nevertheless *
Tsuzuki / McClellan / Demino fall short to explicitly equate such cashout rewarding with
“reliability” has” [predicted or] “determined that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem” as claimed.
* However *
Gardner in analogous recognition of correct predictions teach/suggests such recognition as increased the proficiency, accuracy or “reliability” of the user.
(Gardner ¶ [0163] In step 758, the proficiency score for user is calculated. The proficiency score can be calculated each time a contest entry score is determined or after a predetermined time period. In an embodiment, proficiency score is given by the following equation: proficiency score=W1 ·W2 ·W3…W n·(W A 19 accuracy+W B·total score). Accuracy represents percentage of times the user is correct in predicting items in a contest. In an embodiment, accuracy is determined according to the following equation: Accuracy =
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
p
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
a
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
c
o
n
t
e
s
t
e
n
t
i
r
e
s
i
n
a
c
o
n
t
e
s
t
. The total score is the summation of the contest entry scores for the user in the contest. As would be appreciated by persons of skill in the art, other techniques for determining the proficiency score, accuracy, and/or total score can be used with the present invention).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further complementarily modified or simply explained that rewarding or awarding of correct prediction in the combination of Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino is a form of recognition of “reliability” for such prediction as further clarified by Gardner ¶ [0163]-¶ [0180], incentivized by the need to have provide a better or more precise intelligence (Gardner ¶ [0122] 3rd sentence in view of MPEP 2143 G), while, at same time, also having recognized and given credit where credit is due, by using qualificative such as “all star”, “king of the hill” etc. (Gardner ¶ [0179]-¶ [0180] in view of MPEP 2143 G). The predictability of such modification would have also been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as further articulated by Gardner ¶ [0008], ¶ [0312].
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor of rewarding correct predictions. In such combination each element would have merely performed same analytical, assessment, and crediting function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tsuzuki / McClellan / Demino in further view of Gardner, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like puzzle pieces in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the combination results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Tsuzuki/ McClellan/Demino/ Gardner as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of
Dvoskin; Daniel US 9272713 B1 hereinafter Dvoskin. As per,
Claim 2 Tsuzuki/ McClellan/Demino / Gardner teaches all the limitations in claim 1 above.
Tsuzuki further teaches:
- “acquire callee reliability information indicating reliability of a callee who receives the roll call”
(Tsuzuki ¶ [0041] 1st sentence: measuring blood-pressure of a to-be-called person, measuring acceleration pulse wave of a to-be-called person, a thermometer 55 for measuring the temperature of a to-be-called person, and an alcohol measurement unit 56 for measuring the alcohol concentration in the breath of a to-be-called person.
Tsuzuki ¶ [0043] 1st sentence: Note that a PC 41 is configured to function as an alcohol drinking state check means 41 a for performing an alcohol drinking state check (measurement of an alcohol concentration) of a to-be-called person as a user by the alcohol measurement unit 56
Tsuzuki ¶ [0076]: in Fig.6, alcohol drinking state check means 41 a as one of…measures the alcohol concentration in breath of the to-be-called person by the alcohol measurement unit 56 after S111 (S112). Next, PC 41 determines whether or not the to-be-called person is in an alcohol drinking state based on the alcohol concentration measured at S112 (S113). PC 41 is previously set with a threshold value for determining that a to-be-called person is in the alcohol drinking state, and when alcohol concentration measured at S112 is equal to or more than the threshold value, PC 41 determines that the to-be-called person is in the alcohol drinking state. Note that the value measured by alcohol measurement unit 56 is displayed on the monitor 45 by the PC 41.
Tsuzuki ¶ [0077] When PC 41 determines that the to-be-called person is in the alcohol drinking state at S113, PC 41 notifies ID information of the to-be-called person such as the name read from the license and the IC tag at S101 and S104 and that the to-be-called person was in the alcohol drinking state to the call side device 20 acting as the server via the communication unit 47 (S114), makes error display showing that the call fails on monitor 45 (S103), and finishes the processes shown in Fig.6. ¶ [0078] Note that when the PC 21 of the call side device 20 acting as the server receives that the to-be-called person was in the alcohol drinking state from the to-be-called side device 40, PC 21 transmits that the to-be-called person was in the alcohol drinking state to a predetermined device as an urgent notification together with ID info of the to-be-called person to whom it is determined by the PC 41 that he or she was in the alcohol drinking state.
Tsuzuki at ¶ [0089]- ¶ [0091], ¶ [0115] for additional details or examples).
Rationales to have modified/combined Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner are presented above.
* However *
Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner does not explicitly recite:
- “assign the manager as the caller, to a callee, based on of the manager reliability information and the callee reliability information” as claimed.
Dvoskin however in analogues art of monitoring driver performance teaches or suggests:
- assign the manager as the caller, to a callee, based on the manager reliability information and the callee reliability information”
(Dvoskin column 2 lines 32-43: noting license restrictions requiring the following: You may only drive [or be assigned] with… driving instructor, or qualified driving trainer who is at least 20 years old with 4 years driving experience [or reliability]. Dvoskin column 1 lines 32 -column 2 line 31: previously expanded such restrictions to include lesser reliability based on alcohol consumptions, distracted driving due to cell phone usage and medical conditions).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner’s “apparatus” to have included Dvoskin’s teachings or suggestions in order to have complied with state laws such as, for example, the State of Connecticut (Dvoskin column 2 lines 31-57 in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). The predictability such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as further articulated by Dvoskin column 14 lines 56-67.
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar monitoring driver performance field of endeavor. In such combination each element would have merely performed same analytical and managerial assignment function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner in further view of Dvoskin, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like pieces of a puzzle, in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have also been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Claim 5 Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin teaches all the limitations in claim 2 above.
Tsuzuki further teaches or suggests:
- “acquire biometric information on the callee”; (Tsuzuki ¶ [0076] in Fig.6, the alcohol drinking state check means 41 a as one of functions of PC 41 measures the alcohol concentration in breath of the to-be-called person by the alcohol measurement unit 56 after S111 (S112). Next, PC 41 determines whether or not the to-be-called person is in an alcohol drinking state based on the alcohol concentration measured at S112 (S113). The PC 41 is previously set with a threshold value for determining that a to-be-called person is in the alcohol drinking state, and when the alcohol concentration measured at S112 is equal to or more than the threshold value, the PC 41 determines that the to-be-called person is in the alcohol drinking state. Note that the value measured by the alcohol measurement unit 56 is displayed on the monitor 45 by the PC 41)
- “estimate a state of the callee based on the biometric information”;
(Tsuzuki ¶ [0076] in Fig.6, the alcohol drinking state check means 41 a as one of functions of PC 41 measures the alcohol concentration in a breath of the to-be-called person by the alcohol measurement unit 56 after S111 (S112). Next, the PC 41 determines whether or not the to-be-called person is in an alcohol drinking state based on the alcohol concentration measured at S112 (S113). The PC 41 is previously set with a threshold value for determining that a to-be-called person is in the alcohol drinking state, and when the alcohol concentration measured at S112 is equal to or more than the threshold value, the PC 41 determines that the to-be-called person is in the alcohol drinking state. Note that the value measured by the alcohol measurement unit 56 is displayed on the monitor 45 by the PC 41) “and”
- “present the estimated state to the caller”
(Tsuzuki ¶ [0104] last sentence: since the call manager perform the call while confirming appearance of the to-be-called person and making dialog with the to-be-called person, the call manager perform the call while feeling the physical condition and the like of the to-be-called person from the way of dialog, voice, facial color, eyes etc. of the to-be-called person.
Tsuzuki ¶ [0077] ¶ When PC 41 determines that the to-be-called person is in the alcohol drinking state at S113, the PC 41 notifies ID info of the to-be-called person such as name read from the license and IC tag at S101 and S104 and that the to-be-called person was in the alcohol drinking state to the call side device 20 acting as the server via tcommunication unit 47 (S114), makes an error display showing that the call fails on the monitor 45 (S103), and finishes the processes in Fig.6. ¶ [0078] 1st-2nd sentences: Note that when the PC 21 of the call side device 20 acting as the server receives that the to-be-called person was in the alcohol drinking state from the to-be-called side device 40, the PC 21 transmits that the to-be-called person was in the alcohol drinking state to a not shown predetermined device as an urgent notification together with ID information of the to-be-called person to whom it is determined by the PC 41 that he or she was in the alcohol drinking state. The predetermined device is the mobile communication terminal, the PC, and the like of a management executive and a manager of a carrier and receives the urgent notification from the call side device 20 acting as the server by phone, E mail, and the like).
Rationales to have modified/combined Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin were presented above.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin as applied to claim 2 above in further view of
Linton et al, US 20130040277 A1 hereinafter Linton. As per,
Claim 3 Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin teaches all the limitations in claim 2 above.
Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin does not explicitly recite:
- “assign a manager with the reliability of the manager that is greater than or equal to a second predetermined value, as the caller, to the callee, when the reliability of the callee is less than or equal to a first predetermined value” as claimed [emphasis added on untaught terms]
Linton however in analogues matching based on proficiency or reliability teaches/suggests:
- “assign a manager with the reliability of the manager that is greater than or equal to a second predetermined value, as the caller, to the callee, when the reliability of the callee is less than or equal to a first predetermined value” (Linton ¶ [0094] alignment module 232 determine, based on assessment data, achievement data, and standards data, which teachers are highly proficient relative to various standards [or predetermined value] and which teachers are poorly proficient relative to those standards [or predetermined value], and may align [or assign] the highly proficient teachers to be mentors to the poorly proficient teachers).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin apparatus to have included Linton teaching to have provided more effective assistance or training necessitated by the needs of the underperforming individuals (Linton ¶ [0006] in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F) The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as further articulated by Linton ¶ [0134], ¶ [0143].
Further, the claimed invention, could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor dealing with matching based on proficiency or reliability. In such combination, each element would have merely performed the same analytical and managerial assigning function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tsuzuki / McClellan / Demino / Gardner / Dvoskin in further view of Linton, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin applied to claim 2 above, in further view of
Roman et al, US 20160148330 A1 hereinafter Roman. As per,
Claim 4 Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin teaches all the limitations in claim 2 above.
Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin does not teach:
- “assign one of a plurality of managers, as the caller, to the callee, based on a period when each of the plurality of managers is not assigned to the callee” as claimed. Yet,
Roman in analogues mentor-mentee matching based on skill or reliability teaches/suggest
- “assign one of a plurality of managers, as the caller, to the callee, based on a period when each of the plurality of managers is not assigned to the callee”
(Roman ¶ [0065] 3rd-4th sentences, ¶ [0079], Fig.13B, step 1316: Is the request accepted within a threshold time?->No->step 1318 Additional mentors?->Yes->send the request to a second mentor -> step 1324: establish a mentoring session between a mentor and the user 1324)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin’s apparatus to have included Roman’s teachings to have provided a faster, real time system that would have effectively routed a request for assistance from learner to a qualified mentor (Roman ¶ [0003] in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). Predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Roman ¶ [0094].
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor dealing with mentor-mentee matching based on skill or reliability. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same analytical and management assigning function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin in further view of Roman, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 6,7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin as applied to claim 2 above in further view of
Tuukkanen et al, US 20150038123 A1 hereinafter Tuukkanen. As per,
Claim 6 Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin teaches all limitations in claim 2 above.
Tsuzuki ¶ [0104] 6th sentence: manager perform the call while confirming the appearance of the to-be-called person and making dialog with the to-be-called person, the call manager can perform the call while feeling the physical condition and the like of the to-be-called person from the way of dialog, the voice, the facial color, the eyes, and the like of the to-be-called person
Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin does not explicitly recite:
- “determine matters to be confirmed with the callee in the roll call, based on the reliability of the callee” as claimed. However,
Tuukkanen in analogous art of detecting driving condition of a driver teaches/suggests:
- “determine matters to be confirmed with the callee in the roll call, based on the reliability of the callee” (Tuukkanen ¶ [0028] warning message vary according to the alcohol related activity score. For example, when the alcohol related activity score is above 1st threshold but below a 2nd threshold the mobile device 122 may display a subtle reminder to the user. For example, warning message 123 reminds the user Are you sure you are safe to drive?
Tuukkanen ¶ [0029] The warning message may also vary according to location. If the user's position indicates that the user may be headed to another bar, the warning message may include I see you've arrived at another bar or Maybe it is time to go home.
Tuukkanen ¶ [0030] interface 131 also provide options for confirming sobriety to the user. For example, friend signoff option 137 or sobriety test option 139 may be selected when the alcohol related activity score is above a threshold to confirm the sobriety of the user. The sobriety test option 139 may be selected in addition or as an alternative to the friend signoff option 137.
Tuukkanen ¶ [0064] At act S105, the controller 400 or the communication interface 405 is configured to initiate a communication session between the user and the one or more contacts. The communication session may be a cellular phone call, a voice over IP phone call, a video chat phone call, or another type of communication session. During the communication session, the one or more contacts are requested to assess the sobriety of the user. The request may take the form of a text message or another message on display 131 during or after the communication session. The request may be made by the user by asking the one or more contacts to call or text another number. The request may be made by a recording during the communication session.
Tuukkanen ¶ [0065] At acts S107, in response to the request, controller 400 receives a sobriety assessment from the one or more contacts. The controller 400 compare the sobriety assessment to a threshold level. The sobriety assessment may be a score based on a confidence level included in the sobriety assessment. For example, the one or more contacts may rate how impaired they believe the user is. The sobriety score may be a function of multiple responses from the contacts. ¶ [0066] The threshold level may be a baseline level such that any negative sobriety assessment exceeds the threshold level. The threshold level may be a function of past behavior of the user such as driving under the influence arrests or convictions or automobile accidents).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin‘s apparatus to have included Tuukkanen’s teachings in order to more rigorously asserts sobriety or reliability of the driver (Tuukkanen ¶ [0028]-¶ [0031], ¶ [0065]-¶ [0067] in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Tuukkanen ¶ [0095], ¶ [0097]-¶ [0098].
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar detecting the driver’s condition field of endeavor. In such combination each element would have merely performed same analytical and managerial function as separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin in view of Tuukkanen, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like puzzle pieces in logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reason that the combination results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Claim 7 Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin teaches all the limitations in claim 2 above.
Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin does not explicitly recite:
- “permit the callee to perform a roll call that does not involve the caller, when the reliability of the callee is greater than or equal to a third predetermined value”. However,
Tuukkanen in analogous art of detecting driving condition of a driver teaches/suggests
- “permit the callee to perform a roll call that does not involve the caller, when the reliability of the callee is greater than or equal to a third predetermined value”.
(Tuukkanen ¶ [0028] The warning message may vary according to the alcohol related activity score. For example, when the alcohol related activity score is above a first threshold but below a second threshold the mobile device 122 may display a subtle reminder to the user. For example, warning message 123 reminds the user “Are you sure you are safe to drive?” without the need of a caller as subsequently exemplified at ¶ [0030] 2nd-3rd sentences and ¶ [0031]. Also see MPEP 2175.05(i) with respect to the patentable weight of a negative limitation).
Rationales to have modified/combined Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin with/and Tuukkanen are above and reincorporated herein.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin applied to claim 2 above, in further view of
Tak, Seung-Ho US 20030109972 A1 hereinafter Tak. As per,
Claim 8 Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin teaches all the limitations in claim 2 above.
Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin does not “when there is an abnormality in a vehicle scheduled to be driven by the callee notify a mechanic for the vehicle of the abnormality”.
Tak in analogous early warning diagnosis teach/suggests “when there is an abnormality in a vehicle scheduled to be driven by the callee notify a mechanic for the vehicle of the abnormality”
(Tak ¶ [0043], Fig.3A step 2A diagnose vehicle condition->320->normal?->no->324: guide failure potion and maintenance method ->328 connect a mechanic).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin’s apparatus to have included Tak’s teachings in order to have more versatilely and effectively perform vehicle diagnosis (Tak ¶¶ [0001]-[0008],[0078] in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as further articulated by Tak ¶ [0079]. Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar entity diagnosis field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tsuzuki/McClellan / Demino / Gardner /Dvoskin in further view of Tak, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the combination results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin applied to claim 2 above, in further view of
Hamrick et al, US 20060106537 A1 hereinafter Hamrick. As per,
Claim 9 Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin teaches all limitations in claim 2 above.
Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin does not explicitly recite:
- “display a route map of a vehicle driven by the callee”
- “ highlight at least one of a vehicle driven by a callee who is judged by the caller to be a suspicious person and a vehicle driven by a callee with low reliability” as claimed. However,
Hamrick in analogous art of monitoring vehicle operator or technician teaches / suggests:
- “display a route map of a vehicle driven by the callee”
(Hamrick ¶ [0133] 2nd-9th sentences: Fig. 15 shows graphical route history 1500. Graphical route history 1500 is preferably in the form of a map 1502 that shows route 1504 traveled by the vehicle. Graphical route history 1500 can also include time and GPS. position information. In Fig.15, the time and GPS position information is shown symbolically with map icons 1506. Preferably, this information is overlaid or superimposed on a map so the location of the vehicle or technician can be observed with reference to geographical features. Graphical route history 1500 preferably includes a scale 1508, a title 1510, and a key or legend 1512. Graphical route history 1500 is scalable and users can define or select various sizes of maps. The system can also automatically adjust the map so that all data points are included and the map is produced at the highest possible resolution. Preferably, different icon shapes and colors shall be used to indicate different points or vehicle attributes such as stopped vs. moving, alerts, and exceptions), “and”
- “ highlight at least one of a vehicle driven by a callee who is judged by the caller to be a suspicious person and a vehicle driven by a callee with low reliability”
(Hamrick Fig. 15 elements 1512 highlatings at [Symbol font/0x7F] alarm in vehicle. Specifically, per ¶ [0091] 1st, 3rd sentences: If the vehicle is at a location other than a company location, in step 622 the ACC operator calls the vehicle. If a password is not given or is incorrect, then the ACC operator calls 911 or another emergency number in step 628 and monitors the location of the vehicle.
¶ [0092] 1st, 4th sentences: If the call is not answered by the technician in step 622, then the ACC operator waits for a page tech. If the technician fails to return the page, then the ACC operator calls 911 or another emergency number in step 634).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin’s teachings to have included Hamrick’s teachings to have provided a more rigorous workflow of monitoring a vehicle operator or technician with incremental mitigation practices going as far as calling 911 or police or law enforcement to have ensured safety overall (Hamrick Fig.6 in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F) The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as further articulated by at least Hamrick ¶ [0142] - ¶ [0144].
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar monitoring vehicle operator or technician field of endeavor. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same analytical, managerial and notification or display function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin in further view of Hamrick, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin applied to claim 2 above in further view of
Byong-Hoon JEON US 20080291008 A1 hereinafter Jeon. As per,
Claim 10 Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin teaches all limitations in claim 2 above.
Tsuzuki ¶ [0050] further recites: The image shown in the to-be-called person region 83 is an image picked up by the video camera 43 of the to-be-called side device 40 and transmitted from the to-be-called side device 40 to the call side device 20. ¶ 0051] The image shown in the driver's license region 84 is an image, which is transmitted, when the PC 21 of the call side device 20 acting as the server receives the call request from the to-be-called side device 40, together with the call request from the to-be-called side device 40. The face image of a to-be-called person in the image shown in the “driver's license” region 84 is used to cause the call manager to determine whether or not the person shown in the “to-be-called person” region 83 is truly the to-be-called person himself or herself.
Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin as combination does not explicitly recite:
- “store therein a previous face image of the callee in association with the callee”;
- “acquire a current face image of the callee”
- “authenticate the callee based on of the acquired current face image of the callee”;
- “acquire the previous face image of the callee authenticated from the storage unit”,
- “present an image based on the current face image of the callee and the previous face image of the callee” as claimed.
Jeon however in analogous art of monitoring driver performance teaches or suggests:
- “store therein a previous face image of the callee in association with the callee”;
(Jeon ¶ [0032] The member registration unit 202 registers therein a driver who will receive [or be called for] various drowsy driving prevention services over a wireless Internet as a member. The member registration unit 202 also stores a face vector template of a member at normal times in a member DB 216 and uses the face vector template as an authentication key. Specifically per,
Jeon Fig.4, ¶ [0041] A user of drowsy driving prevention apparatus 100 registers a driver's face vector template, extracted from the driver's face photographed by camera, as a vehicle's driver and stores the driver's face vector template in driver DB 120 (step S401). For example, at
Jeon ¶ [0022] 1st sentence: user registration unit 104 stores a vector template of a driver's face (who is the user of the drowsy driving prevention apparatus 100) in a driver DB 120.
Jeon ¶ [0024] 1st sentence: face image reader 110 generates the driver's first face vector template based on digital image stream stored in memory 108 using facial recognition technology.
Jeon ¶ [0026] noting the face previous state and the stored vector template using a facial recognition technology and a statistic process)
- “acquire a current face image of the callee”
(Jeon ¶ [0010] noting a camera for capturing a driver's face image upon vehicle driving,
Jeon ¶ [0042] The vehicle's camera 102 captures an image of a driver's face S402), “and”
- “authenticate the callee based on of the acquired current face image of the callee”;
(Jeon ¶ [0025] 1st sentence: user authentication unit 111 authenticates an authentic driver by comparing/analyzing the driver's first face vector template generated from the face image reader 110 and the driver's vector template stored in driver DB 120
Jeon ¶ [0044] 1st sentence: After the driver's first vector template is generated, the user authentication unit 111 compares/analyzes the driver's first vector template generated in the face image reader 110 and the driver's vector template stored in the driver DB 120 in order to determine whether the driver is an authentic driver (step S405)) “and”
- “acquire the previous face image of the callee authenticated from the storage unit”,
(Jeon ¶ [0045] If it is determined that the driver is an authentic driver, the drowsy driving analysis unit 112 continuously compares/analyzes the driver's first face vector template generated from the face image reader 110 and the driver's vector template stored in driver DB 120 to determine the driver's drowsy state (step S406). That is, the drowsy driving analysis unit 112 can track and monitor the driver's drowsy driving by continuously comparing the vector template, such as the eye's flickering, a face angle, and shaking, and its previous state based on the digital image stream using a facial recognition technology) “and”
- “present an image based on the current face image of the callee and the previous face image of the callee” (Jeon ¶ [0026] 2nd sentence, ¶ [0045] 1st sentence the drowsy driving analysis unit 112 continuously compares/analyzes driver's first face vector template generated from the face image reader 110 and driver's vector template stored in driver DB 120 to determine driver's drowsy state S406. ¶ [0046] 1st sentence: If, as result of determination [or comparison supra], the driver's drowsy driving is determined in drowsy driving analysis unit 112 step S407, the anti-drowsy driving unit 114 outputs [or presents] contents, such as digital images for anti-drowsiness)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin apparatus to have included Jeon’s teachings or suggestions in order to have continuously provided strong and live contents for drowsy prevention in real-time while communicating with the drowsy driving prevention apparatus mounted in a vehicle, for ultimately having prevented and eliminated the effects (Jeon ¶ [0057] in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as further articulated by Jeon ¶ [0058].
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar monitoring driver performance field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same acquiring, analytical, managerial, authentication and notification function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin in further view of Jeon, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or econocmailly desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the combination results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin/Jeon applied to claim 10 above in further view of Tomosue et al, US 20220004790 A1, hereinafter Tomosue. As per,
Claim 11 Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin/Jeon teaches all limitations in claim 10 above. Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin/Jeon does not explicitly teach:
- “superimpose and display a difference between the current face image and the previous face image of the callee, on at least one of the current face image and the previous face image of the callee” as claimed.
Tomosue however in analogous art of driver monitoring teaches or at least suggests:
- “superimpose and display a difference between the current face image and the previous face image of the callee, on at least one of the current face image and the previous face image of the callee”.
(Tomosue ¶ [0048] 2nd sentence: The reference direction and the reference position of the driver's face are calculated, based on orientations and positions of the driver's face respectively detected from the face images 402-m to 402-n obtained after time t1, of the face images 402-1 to 402-n obtained in the predetermined period P.
Tomosue ¶ [0050] The determining unit 34 compares the latest orientation and position of the driver's face with the reference direction and the reference position of the driver's face to determine whether the driver is in the state suitable for driving the vehicle 10.
Tomosue ¶ [0051] 2nd-4th sentences: When the absolute value of this difference is beyond the tolerable range of face orientations, the determining unit 34 determines that the driver is looking away, i.e., the driver is not in the state suitable for driving the vehicle 10. Similarly, the determining unit 34 calculates the absolute value of the difference between the latest position and the reference position of the driver's face, and compares the absolute value of this difference with a predetermined tolerable range of positions. When the absolute value of this difference is beyond the tolerable range of positions, the determining unit 34 determines that the driver is not in the state suitable for driving the vehicle 10.
Tomosue ¶ [0052] As described above, the driver may look other than ahead of the vehicle 10 to check the situation around the vehicle 10. However, even in such a case, the driver will not continue looking other than ahead of the vehicle 10 as long as the driver is concentrating on driving the vehicle 10. In view of this, according to a modified example, the determining unit 34 may determine that the driver is not in the state suitable for driving the vehicle 10, in the case that the absolute value of the difference between the orientation and the reference direction of the driver's face has been beyond the tolerable range of face orientations for a predetermined time (e.g., several seconds) or longer. Similarly, the determining unit 34 may determine that the driver is not in the state suitable for driving the vehicle 10, in the case that the absolute value of the difference between the position and the reference position of the driver's face has been beyond the tolerable range of positions for a predetermined time or longer.
Tomosue ¶ [0057] 2nd sentence: The face-reference updating unit 33 also updates the reference position of the driver's face so that the average of positions of the driver's face respectively detected from the face images obtained in the predetermined period after detection of previous putting on or taking off a wearable object will be the reference position (step S105).
Tomosue ¶ [0058] 1st sentence: After update of the reference direction and the reference position, the determining unit 34 of the processor 23 compares the latest orientation and position of the driver's face with the reference direction and the reference position of the driver's face to determine the driver's state (step S106) ).
PNG
media_image1.png
628
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tomosue Fig.4A in support of rejection arguments
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin/Jeon’s “apparatus” to have included Tomosue’s teachings in order to have provided effective monitoring of driver attentiveness by face orientation on the road even in situations when the driver puts a wearable object such as sunglasses or a mask (Tomosue ¶ [0003], ¶ [0048], ¶ [0059] in view of MPEP 2143 G). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Tomosue ¶ [0067].
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar driver monitoring field of endeavor. In such combination each element would have merely performed same analytical, managerial and display function as separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tsuzuki/McClellan/Demino/Gardner/Dvoskin/Jeon in view of Tomosue, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like puzzle pieces in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the combination results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Tsuzuki et al, US 20110277537 A1 hereinafter Tsuzuki, in view of
McClellan et al, US 20080319602 A1 hereinafter McClellan, in view of
Dvoskin; Daniel US 9272713 B1 hereinafter Dvoskin, in in view of
Byong-Hoon JEON US 20080291008 A1 hereinafter Jeon, and in further view of
Demino et al US 20120295698 A1 hereinafter Demino and in further view of
Gardner et al, US 20070011073 A1 hereinafter Gardner. As per,
Claim 12 Tsuzuki teaches “A task management system comprising”:
“a callee terminal including at least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and at least one processor” (Fig.3,¶ [0041]-¶ [0042]) “that is configured to execute the instructions to”:
- “communicate with an external apparatus”
(Tsuzuki Fig.3, ¶ [0041] 1st sentence: communicate with external device) ; and
- “generate a current face image of a callee by imaging the callee”;
(Tsuzuki ¶ [0043] 1st sentence, ¶ [0044] obtain state by image using video camera 43
Tsuzuki ¶ [0050] The image shown in the to-be-called person region 83 is an image picked up by the video camera 43 of the to-be-called side device 40 and transmitted from the to-be-called side device 40 to the call side device 20)
“an information processing apparatus including at least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to”:
- “acquire manager (Tsuzuki ¶ [0032] Fig.1 is a block diagram of a roll call system 10 according to the embodiment. ¶ [0056] 2nd sentence: The number of calls which can be processed at the same time is equal to the number of call managers who perform a call, that is, equal to the number of the call side devices 20. ¶ [0057] When a call is delayed because many to-be-called persons are registered in the call waiting list, a carrier employing the roll call system 10 can overcome the delay by additionally employing the number of the call side devices 20 and the number of the call managers who use the call side devices 20. ¶ [0078] 2nd sentence: The predetermined device is the mobile communication terminal, the PC, and the like of a management executive and a manager of a carrier and receives the urgent notification from the call side device 20 acting as the server by phone, E mail, and the like)
- acquire callee reliability information indicating reliability of a callee who receives the roll call;
(Tsuzuki ¶ [0041] 1st sentence: measuring blood-pressure of a to-be-called person, measuring acceleration pulse wave of a to-be-called person, a thermometer 55 for measuring the temperature of a to-be-called person, and an alcohol measurement unit 56 for measuring the alcohol concentration in the breath of a to-be-called person.
Tsuzuki ¶ [0043] 1st sentence: Note that a PC 41 is configured to function as an alcohol drinking state check means 41 a for performing an alcohol drinking state check (measurement of an alcohol concentration) of a to-be-called person as a user by the alcohol measurement unit 56
Tsuzuki ¶ [0076]: in Fig.6, alcohol drinking state check means 41 a as one of…measures the alcohol concentration in breath of the to-be-called person by the alcohol measurement unit 56 after S111 (S112). Next, PC 41 determines whether or not the to-be-called person is in an alcohol drinking state based on the alcohol concentration measured at S112 (S113). PC 41 is previously set with a threshold value for determining that a to-be-called person is in the alcohol drinking state, and when alcohol concentration measured at S112 is equal to or more than the threshold value, PC 41 determines that the to-be-called person is in the alcohol drinking state. Note that the value measured by alcohol measurement unit 56 is displayed on the monitor 45 by the PC 41.
Tsuzuki ¶ [0077] When PC 41 determines that the to-be-called person is in the alcohol drinking state at S113, PC 41 notifies ID information of the to-be-called person such as the name read from the license and the IC tag at S101 and S104 and that the to-be-called person was in the alcohol drinking state to the call side device 20 acting as the server via the communication unit 47 (S114), makes error display showing that the call fails on monitor 45 (S103), and finishes the processes shown in Fig.6. ¶ [0078] Note that when the PC 21 of the call side device 20 acting as the server receives that the to-be-called person was in the alcohol drinking state from the to-be-called side device 40, PC 21 transmits that the to-be-called person was in the alcohol drinking state to a predetermined device as an urgent notification together with ID info of the to-be-called person to whom it is determined by the PC 41 that he or she was in the alcohol drinking state.
Tsuzuki at ¶ [0089]- ¶ [0091], ¶ [0115] for additional details or examples).
- “
- “
- “communicate with the callee terminal” (Tsuzuki Fig.2 element 27,[0036] communication unit 27 for communication with external device. Fig.3 element 47, ¶ [0041]: communication unit 47 for making a communication with an external device. ¶ [0043] Note that a PC 41 is configured to function as an alcohol drinking state check means 41 a for performing an alcohol drinking state check (measurement of an alcohol concentration) of a to-be-called person as a user by the alcohol measurement unit 56, a peripheral state obtaining means 41 b for obtaining a peripheral state by sound and image using the microphone 42 and the video camera 43, a temporary record continuation means 41 c for continuing the temporary record of the peripheral states obtained by the peripheral state obtaining means 41 b, a pre-check/post-check record means 41 d for recording peripheral states for 10 minutes before and 10 minutes after a check to a non-volatile memory as evidence in the respective checks, and an external transmission means 41 e for transmitting the peripheral states recorded by the pre-check/post-check record means 41 d to the call side devices 20 as external devices by the communication unit 47)
- “acquire the current face image of the callee from the callee terminal, and authenticate the callee based on the acquired current face image of the callee”; (Tsuzuki ¶ [0041] last sentence: authentication by venous, iris, face, etc. may be employed.) “and”
- “acquire the previous face image of the callee authenticated, from the storage unit, and present an image based on the (Tsuzuki ¶ [0052] 2nd sentence: The face image of a to-be-called person shown in the registered face image region 85 is used to cause the call manager to determine whether or not the person shown in the to-be-called person region 83 is truly the to-be-called person himself or herself. ¶ [0096] Further, the face image and the past history, which are previously registered in the PC 21 of the call side device 20 acting as the server as to the to-be-called person as the target, are shown in the registered face image region 85 and past history region 86 respectively. ¶ [0104] 4th sentence: The image picked up by video camera 43 of the to-be-called side devices 40 as the target is shown in the to-be-called person region 83 on the monitor 45 of the to-be-called side device 40 as the target as well as shown also in the to-be-called person region 83 on the monitor 25 of the call side device 20 via the network 11) “and”
- “a manager terminal including: at least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and at least one processor” (Tsuzuki Fig.2 and ¶ [0035]-¶ [0037]) “that is configured to execute the instructions to”:
- “communicate with the information processing apparatus” (Tsuzuki ¶ [0063] Note that each time the PC 21 of the call side device 20 acting as the server updates the call waiting list, the PC 21 delivers the call waiting list to the call side devices 20 acting as the clients and to all the to-be-called side devices 40. Accordingly, the same call waiting list is displayed on the monitors 25 of all the call side devices 20 and on the monitors 45 of all the to-be-called side devices 40 at all times. ¶ [0077] When the PC 41 determines that the to-be-called person is in the alcohol drinking state at S113, the PC 41 notifies ID information of the to-be-called person such as the name read from the license and the IC tag at S101 and S104 and that the to-be-called person was in the alcohol drinking state to the call side device 20 acting as the server via the communication unit 47 (S114), makes an error display showing that the call fails on the monitor 45 (S103), and finishes the processes shown in Fig.6. ¶ [0104] 4th sentence: image picked up by video camera 43 of the to-be-called side devices 40 as the target is shown in the to-be-called person region 83 on the monitor 45 of the to-be-called side device 40 as the target as well as shown also in the to-be-called person region 83 on the monitor 25 of the call side device 20 via the network 11. Other different examples at ¶ [0092]- ¶ [0116]) “and”
- “display a screen to present the image based on the current face image of the callee and the previous face image of the callee for the manager”
(Tsuzuki Fig.4 ¶ [0041] last sentence: an authentication by … iris, face, and the like. Next at
Tsuzuki ¶ [0104] last sentence: The call manager can perform the call while confirming the appearance of the to-be-called person and making dialog with the to-be-called person, the call manager can perform the call while feeling the physical condition and the like of the to-be-called person from the way of… facial color, the eyes, and the like of the to-be-called person).
* However *
Tsuzuki does not explicitly recite:
- “acquire manager reliability information indicating reliability of a manager who performs a roll call
- “…based on the manager reliability information and the callee reliability information”;
- “store a previous face image of the callee in association with the callee, in a storage unit”;
- “…present an image based on the current face image of the callee and the previous face image of the callee”; as explicitly claimed.
- “wherein the reliability of the manager increases in a case where the manager has
determined that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem”.
* Nevertheless *
McClellan in analogues art of monitoring driver performance based on a driving manager or instructor teaches or suggests: “manager reliability information” required by:
- “acquire manager reliability information indicating reliability of a manager
(McClellan ¶ [0054] 2nd-4th, 6th,7th sentences: In step 501, a vehicle monitoring system is installed and training mode is started. In step 502, the vehicle is operated by a…, driving instructor or other experienced driver [interpreted as driving manager] in the training mode during a training period. In step 503, the vehicle monitoring system observes all or selected vehicle parameters during the training period… In step 504, the vehicle monitoring system creates an acceptable driving profile based upon the observed parameters. The…experienced [or reliable] driver may review the acceptable driving profile parameters and thresholds in step 505… The monitoring mode is started in step 507, and from that point on, in step 508, the monitoring device provides mentoring and warning messages to the driver based upon selected acceptable driving profile).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsuzuki’s system to have included McClellan’s teachings and ensuing suggestions in order to provided an additional layer of versatility or customization of the manager or instructor with respect to the to be monitored drivers for more accurate monitoring with the ultimate goals to ensure expertise or reliability of the instructor or the manager , while at the same time improving safety standards including for the driver himself or herself (McClellan ¶ [0050], ¶ [0054] in view of MPEP 21342 G and/or F). This would have been especially desirable in dealing with many to-be-called persons (Tsuzuki ¶ [0038]-¶ [0039]) such as drivers of a fleet of vehicles (McClellan ¶ [0034], ¶ [0044]-¶ [0046]). The predictability of such modification would have corroborated by the broad level of skills of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by McClellan at ¶ [0056]. Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor dealing with tracking or managing the performance of a task. In such combination each element would have merely performed same analytical monitoring and managerial function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tsuzuki in view of McClellan, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and /or econocmailly desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have also been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
* Further *
Dvoskin however in analogues art of monitoring driver performance teaches or suggests:
- “assign a manager who actually performs the roll call as the caller, to a callee, on the basis of the manager reliability information and the callee reliability information”;
(Dvoskin column 2 lines 32-43: noting license restrictions requiring the following: You may only drive [or be assigned] with… driving instructor, or qualified driving trainer who is at least 20 years old with 4 years driving experience [or reliability]. Dvoskin column 1 lines 32 -column 2 line 31: previously expanded such restrictions to include lesser reliability based on alcohol consumptions, distracted driving due to cell phone usage and medical conditions).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsuzuki / McClellanu’s “system” to have included Dvoskin’s teachings in order to have complied with state laws such as, for example, the State of Connecticut (Dvoskin column 2 lines 31-57 in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). The predictability such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as further articulated by Dvoskin column 14 lines 56-67.
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor dealing with monitoring driver performance. In such combination each element would have merely performed same analytical and managerial assignment function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tsuzuki / McClellan in further view of Dvoskin, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
* Further still *
Jeon however in analogous art of monitoring driver performance teaches or suggests:
- “store a previous face image of the callee in association with the callee, in a storage unit”;
(Jeon ¶ [0032] The member registration unit 202 registers therein a driver who will receive [or be called for] various drowsy driving prevention services over a wireless Internet as a member. The member registration unit 202 also stores a face vector template of a member at normal times in a member DB 216 and uses the face vector template as an authentication key. Specifically per,
Jeon Fig.4, ¶ [0041] A user of drowsy driving prevention apparatus 100 registers a driver's face vector template, extracted from the driver's face photographed by camera, as a vehicle's driver and stores the driver's face vector template in driver DB 120 (step S401). For example, at
Jeon ¶ [0022] 1st sentence: user registration unit 104 stores a vector template of a driver's face (who is the user of the drowsy driving prevention apparatus 100) in a driver DB 120.
Jeon ¶ [0024] 1st sentence: face image reader 110 generates the driver's first face vector template based on digital image stream stored in memory 108 using facial recognition technology.
Jeon ¶ [0026] noting the face previous state and the stored vector template using a facial recognition technology and a statistic process)
- “…present an image based on the current face image of the callee and the previous face image of the callee” (Jeon ¶ [0026] 2nd sentence, ¶ [0045] 1st sentence the drowsy driving analysis unit 112 continuously compares/analyzes driver's first face vector template generated from the face image reader 110 and driver's vector template stored in driver DB 120 to determine driver's drowsy state S406. ¶ [0046] 1st sentence: If, as result of determination, the driver's drowsy driving is determined in drowsy driving analysis unit 112 step S407, the anti-drowsy driving unit 114 outputs [or presents] contents, such as digital images for anti-drowsiness)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Tsuzuki/McClellan/Dvoskin’s system to have included Jeon’s teachings to have continuously provided strong and live contents for drowsy prevention in real-time while communicating with the drowsy driving prevention apparatus mounted in a vehicle, for ultimately having prevented and eliminated the effects (Jeon ¶ [0057] in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as further articulated by Jeon ¶ [0058].
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar monitoring driver performance field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same acquiring, analytical, managerial, authentication and notification function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tsuzuki / McClellan / Dvoskin in further view of Jeon, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or econocmailly desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the combination results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
* Further still *
Tsuzuki / McClellan / Dvoskin / Jeon combination teaches a manager or mentor assessing person such as a driver of a vehicle, yet Tsuzuki / McClellan / Dvoskin / Jeon does not necessarily entrust or bet or determine[..] that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem” as claimed at limitation “wherein the reliability of the manager increases in a case where the manager has determined that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem”19,
* However *
Demino in analogous assessing driver aptitudes:
- determine[s] [or bets] “that the” [driver] … “will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem” as claimed
(Demino ¶ [0033] 4th, 6th sentences: Thus, during Friday qualifications, bettors can wager on predicting whether a driver will crash during qualification. Race day wagers can also be extended to include wagers on whether… the entire race will run without a crash… ¶ [0034] last sentence: Finally, in step 890, once the action has been completed (i.e. completion of …NASCAR event), payouts are made to bettors who correctly predicted the outcome of the action, such as driver ran without a crash, as identified at ¶ [0033] 4th, 6th sentences above).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tsuzuki/ McClellan / Dvoskin/ Jeon’s system to have included Demino’s teachings or suggestions to have provided a more equitable process of rewarding or recognizing correct decision making processes (Demino ¶ [0033]-¶ [0034 in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F]) even in situations of large payouts for small wagers (Demino ¶ [0029] 4th sentence in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the fact that each and all of Tsuzuki / McClellan / Dvoskin / Jeon and Demino assess the user’s (i.e. driver) aptitudes, no matter of how such assessment is intended to be used, such as in a work or performance-based training setting as per Tsuzuki / McClellan / Dvoskin / Jeon or in a setting conducive of rewarding the correct decision of picking the driver that turns out not to cause a problem as per Demino. Thus, consistent with MPEP 2141.01(a) I, each of Tsuzuki / McClellan / Dvoskin / Jeon and Demino are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are: (1) from the same field of endeavor of assessing user (i.e. driver) aptitudes; or (2) they are reasonably pertinent to the analysis and consequences or the assessment (even if, in the arguendo, they would not be in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Examiner corroborates analogous rationale by relying on MPEP 2141.01(a) IV which cites In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325-26, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211-12 (Fed. Cir. 2004) where the patent application claimed a "hair brush" having a specific bristle configuration. The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of the claims as being obvious in view of prior art patents disclosing toothbrushes. Id. at 1323, 72 USPQ2d at 1210. The appellant disputed that the patent references constituted analogous art. On appeal, the court upheld the Board’s interpretation of the claim term "hair brush" to encompass any brush that may be used for any bodily hair, including facial hair. Id. at 1323-24, 72 USPQ2d at 1211. With this claim interpretation, the court applied the "field of endeavor test" for analogous art and determined that the references were within the field of the inventor’s endeavor and hence were analogous art because toothbrushes are structurally similar to small brushes for hair, and a toothbrush could be used to brush facial hair. Id. at 1326, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. Since the Court established that use of a toothbrush as hair brush, did contravene the analogous rationale, the Examiner similarly reasons that here, the assessment of use (i.e. driver) aptitudes, no matter of how such assessment is intended to be used, would also not render their modification or combination improper in a manner consistent with the Bigio test above.
Further, the claimed invention can also be viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor of identifying relationships between business entities (i.e. manager-callee) and assessing the callee’s (i.e. driver) aptitudes. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same identification, analysis assessment, and its related future recognition function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing ability to combine the elements as evidenced above by Tsuzuki / McClellan / Dvoskin / Jeon in further view of Demino, the to be combined results would have fitted together, like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
* Further still *
Tsuzuki / McClellan / Dvoskin / Jeon / Demino while recognizing or rewarding: “in a case where the” [user or] manager has determined that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem”
Tsuzuki / McClellan / Dvoskin / Jeon / Demino does not equate such cashout rewarding with “reliability” has” [predicted or] “determined that the callee will not cause a problem during a pre-duty roll call, and the callee does not actually cause a problem” as claimed.
* Nevertheless *
Gardner in analogous recognition of correct predictions teach or suggests such recognition as increased the proficiency, accuracy or “reliability” of the user.
(Gardner ¶ [0163] In step 758, the proficiency score for user is calculated. The proficiency score can be calculated each time a contest entry score is determined or after a predetermined time period. In an embodiment, proficiency score is given by the following equation: proficiency score=W1 ·W2 ·W3…W n·(W A 19 accuracy+W B·total score). Accuracy represents percentage of times the user is correct in predicting items in a contest. In an embodiment, accuracy is determined according to the following equation: Accuracy =
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
p
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
a
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
c
o
n
t
e
s
t
e
n
t
i
r
e
s
i
n
a
c
o
n
t
e
s
t
. The total score is the summation of the contest entry scores for the user in the contest. As would be appreciated by persons of skill in the art, other techniques for determining the proficiency score, accuracy, and/or total score can be used with the present invention).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified or explained that the rewarding or awarding of correct prediction in the combination of Tsuzuki/McClellan/Dvoskin/Jeon/ Demino is a form of recognition of “reliability” for such prediction as further clarified by Gardner ¶ [0163]-¶ [0180], incentivized by the need to have provide a better or more precise intelligence (Gardner ¶ [0122] 3rd sentence in view of MPEP 2143 G), while, at the same time, also having recognized and given credit where credit is due, by qualificative such as “all star”, “king of the hill” etc. (Gardner ¶ [0179]-¶ [0180] in view of MPEP 2143 G). The predictability of such modification would have also been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as further articulated by Gardner ¶ [0008], ¶ [0312]. Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor that recognizes correct predictions. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same analytical, assessment, and crediting function as separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Tsuzuki/McClellan/Dvoskin / Jeon/Demino in further view of Gardner, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like puzzle pieces in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
-> Ueno et al, Development of Drowsiness Detection System,IEEE,0-7803-2105-7, Sep 1994
-> WO 2008143399 A1 teaching Preventive terminal device and internet system from drowsy and distracted driving on motorways using facial recognition technology
-> US 20220404161 A1 System for generating guidance information reciting at ¶ [0033] 2nd-3rd sentences: The guidance information provision system of this example aids effective guidance for safe driving to a driver of a freight- or passenger-carrying vehicle by generating information for guidance from vehicle observation information that records vehicle behavior from driving performed on the same day during roll call performed after the end of operations, and determining the guidance type effective for each drive on the basis of past guidance history. For example, safety guidance is aided by detecting dangerous situations by analyzing the vehicle behavior of a truck, and, during roll call conducted after the driver of the truck has completed operations and returned to the office, showing a short video of the dangerous situations that occurred that day.
US 20100198659 A1 Methods for matching and managing mentors and mentees and systems thereof
US 20120135382 A1 Individualized mastery-based driver training
US 20190057724 A1 Video reproducing device, video reproducing method, and program
US 20190018406 A1 Remote driver assistance
US 20040243401 A1 Apparatus for detecting fatigue and doze by voice, and recording medium
US 20210221434 A1 Vehicle and vehicle steering control system and method
US 10102773 B2 Methods for evaluating human performance in aviation
US 20050242971 A1 System and method for safe disablement of mobile pieces of equipment (MPEs)
US 20190291739 A1 Driving evaluation system and program
US 20150127212 A1 Dynamic Safety System
US 20230365184 A1 Control system for vehicle
US 20210171018 A1 Assistance method to improve performance in driving a car demonstrating difficult performance through an autonomous driving system triggered by the driver
US 20160318521 A1 Method and system for drunk driving prevention
US 9406086 B2 System and method for violation enforcement utilizing vehicle immobilization
US 8552847 B1 Tactile based performance enhancement system
US 9015093 B1 Intelligent control with hierarchical stacked neural networks
US 20200075043 A1 Management of autonomous vehicle driving features based on driver state
US 20160300050 A1 Verifying a user with biometric data
US 20220165089 A1 Recognition system, recognition method, recognition program, and computer-readable non-transitory storage medium
US 20200245031 A1 System and method of tablet-based distribution of digital media content
US 20170305434 A1 Dynamic Learning Driving System and Method
US 20220391853 A1 Service Bay Timer System and Method
US 20110052013 A1 Face pose estimation device, face pose estimation method and face pose estimation program
US 20190228379 A1 Attendance Consistency Management System and Attendance Consistency Management Method
US 20200034603 A1 Facial recognition device
US 20170169302 A1 Viewing area estimation device
US 20190370577 A1 Driving Management Methods and Systems, Vehicle-Mounted Intelligent Systems, Electronic Devices, and Medium
US 10176848 B2 Recording and reproducing apparatus and method thereof
US 10611380 B2 Method and system for assessing the trip performance of a driver
US 20180047297 A1 Attendance monitoring system
US 20190138790 A1 Driver monitoring system
US 20200154497 A1 Electronic apparatus and operation method thereof
US 20200082590 A1 Vehicle and control method thereof
US 20190370579 A1 Driving state determination device, determination device, and driving state determination method
US 20190057354 A1 Labor management system
US 20190377933 A1 Driver monitoring device
US 20170061812 A1 Driver monitoring and feedback system
US 20060202842 A1 Car alcohol monitoring system
US 20200402651 A1 Adaptive control of medical devices based on clinician interactions
US 10991190 B1 Digital pass verification systems and methods
US 9672823 B2 Methods and vehicles for processing voice input and use of tone/mood in voice input to select vehicle response
US 20100148947 A1 Automated Geo-Fence Boundary Configuration And Activation
US 20220147608 A1 Biological information measurement system, fraud measurement determination method, fraud measurement determination program, and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium
US 20040066276 A1 Biometric identification and reporting system
US 20240144148 A1 Information processing apparatus, information processing method and program
US 20150269635 A1 Traffic school management system and process
US 20210407231 A1 Device, method and storage medium
US 20150054934 A1 Teleproctor reports use of a vehicle and restricts functions of drivers phone
US 20240051547 A1 Driver collation system, driver collation method, and recording medium
US 11416958 B1 Mobile site watch
US 7142971 B2 System and method for automatically controlling a path of travel of a vehicle
US 10987593 B2 Dynamic interfaces for launching direct gameplay
US 9070088 B1 Determining trustworthiness and compatibility of a person
US 6757357 B1 Failure response procedure and system
US 10793106 B2 Automobile tracking and notification device and service
US 10838421 B2 Autonomous drive system
US 9210547 B2 Mobile driving condition detection
US 20240046224 A1 System and Method for Management of Remote Assets with Data Aggregation
US 20210338146 A1 Methods and systems for improving human facial skin conditions by leveraging vehicle cameras and skin data ai analytics
US 20180075773 A1 Performance Coaching Method and Apparatus
US 20100080536 A1 Information recording/reproducing apparatus and video camera
US 20210104149 A1 Real time municipal imminent danger warning system
US 20210174920 A1 Intelligent method and intelligent system for processing physiological data
US 20080258890 A1 System and Method for Remotely Deactivating a Vehicle
US 20120249787 A1 Surveillance System
US 10479370 B2 System and method for authorizing a user to operate a vehicle
US 7840317 B2 Method and system for controlling a hijacked aircraft
US 20230071836 A1 Scene security level determination method, device and storage medium
US 1416958 A Portable crane
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIAN ROTARU whose telephone number is (571)270-7950. The examiner can normally be reached on 571.270.7950 from 9AM to 6PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICIA H MUNSON, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Octavian Rotaru/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 A
June 30th, 2026
1 Such limitation can also be argued to have limited patentable weight as per the wherein clause test of MPEP 2111.04 I, the contingent clause test of MPEP 2111.04 II and/or the intended use or result test of USPTO’s training entitled Focus on Computer/Software-related Claims dated May 2015 slides 16-17,20-21, which cites MPEP 2111.04
2 Such limitation can also be argued to have limited patentable weight as per the wherein clause test of MPEP 2111.04 I, the contingent clause test of MPEP 2111.04 II and/or the intended use or result test of USPTO’s training entitled Focus on Computer/Software-related Claims dated May 2015 slides 16-17,20-21, which cites MPEP 2111.04
3 Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
4 TLI Communications 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747
5 TLI Communications 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747
6 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
7 FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
8 FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
9 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
10 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
11 Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
12 TLI Communications 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747
13 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
14 FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
15 FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
16 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
17 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
18 Such limitation can also be argued to have limited patentable weight as per the wherein clause test of MPEP 2111.04 I, the contingent clause test of MPEP 2111.04 II and/or the intended use or result test of USPTO’s training entitled Focus on Computer/Software-related Claims dated May 2015 slides 16-17,20-21, which cites MPEP 2111.04
19 Such limitation can also be argued to have limited patentable weight as per the wherein clause test of MPEP 2111.04 I, the contingent clause test of MPEP 2111.04 II and/or the intended use or result test of USPTO’s training entitled Focus on Computer/Software-related Claims dated May 2015 slides 16-17,20-21, which cites MPEP 2111.04
Prosecution Insights