DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
Status of Claims
Claims 31-42 of U.S. Application No. 18/771905 filed on 07/12/2024 have been examined.
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.
2. Claims 31-42 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) without significantly more.
101 Analysis- Step 1
The claims are directed to a system for determining driving characteristic of a driver of a vehicle (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 31-42 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A system for determining a driving characteristic of a driver of a vehicle, the system comprising: a mobile device including a processor and a non-transitory memory storing machine-readable instructions, a GPS receiver, and a motion sensor, the processor being configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to: determine that the mobile device is in the vehicle; determine if a characteristic of the mobile device exceeds a predetermined threshold; responsive to a determination that the characteristic of the mobile device exceeds the predetermined threshold, cause an unsafe driving alert to be delivered by the mobile device; and responsive to a determination that more than a threshold number of the unsafe driving alerts have been delivered within a predefined period of time, cause an unsafe driving report to be transmitted, via the mobile device, to a predetermined entity.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining…”, “alerting…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system for determining a driving characteristic of a driver of a vehicle, the system comprising: a mobile device including a processor and a non-transitory memory storing machine-readable instructions, a GPS receiver, and a motion sensor, the processor being configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to: determine that the mobile device is in the vehicle; determine if a characteristic of the mobile device exceeds a predetermined threshold; responsive to a determination that the characteristic of the mobile device exceeds the predetermined threshold, cause an unsafe driving alert to be delivered by the mobile device; and responsive to a determination that more than a threshold number of the unsafe driving alerts have been delivered within a predefined period of time, cause an unsafe driving report to be transmitted, via the mobile device, to a predetermined entity.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “alerting…,” and “transmitted…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps from the sensors and from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The communicating results step on the machine interference is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of communicating a warning of risk), and amounts to mere post solution warning either via display or speakers (page 30, “here a mobile cellular device 54 is used to execute the program, or is otherwise available and communicating with a local device 10, the visual cues may be displayed on the display for the device, possibly by flashing an icon or a colored screen. The audible alert, projected out over the speaker built into the handset, may generally be a safer way to cue the driver to risky driving behavior as the audible alert does not require the driver to avert their eyes from the road.”), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the data processing steps merely describes how to generally “determining” and “alerting” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the evaluating step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract
idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determining and alerting … amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “processor…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “alerting…,”, “transmitted” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLCv. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “displaying…,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 32-42 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application [provide concise explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 32-42 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [independent claim]
Therefore, claim(s) 31-42 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 31-42 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stanek et al. [US 2016/0063045 A1], hereinafter referred to as Stanek.
As to Claim 31, Stanek discloses a system for determining a driving characteristic of a driver of a vehicle ([See at least 0036, 0052 and 0054], “ Human factors 239 can also play a role in the determination. If data is known about a driver (through, for example, vehicle data reported by the vehicle), this can be useful. This data could be dynamic 217 or static 219. Data types can include, for example, speeding habits (current or historic), age of driver, driving experience, impairments, distraction, etc. Much of the data in this category can be both current and historic data, depending on what data is available, and is useful in determining a driver's own human effect on riskiness of driving.”), the system comprising: a mobile device including a processor and a non-transitory memory storing machine-readable instructions ([See at least 0026]), a GPS receiver ([See at least 0023]), and a motion sensor ([See at least 0043 and 0044]), the processor being configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to: determine that the mobile device is in the vehicle ([See at least 0026]); determine if a characteristic of the mobile device exceeds a predetermined threshold ([See at least 0040, 0041, 0046 and 0054]); responsive to a determination that the characteristic of the mobile device exceeds the predetermined threshold, cause an unsafe driving alert to be delivered by the mobile device ([See at least 0015, 0039, 0040, 0041, 0046 and 0054]); and responsive to a determination that more than a threshold number of the unsafe driving alerts have been delivered within a predefined period of time, cause an unsafe driving report to be transmitted, via the mobile device, to a predetermined entity ([See at least 0015, 0039, 0040, 0041, 0046 and 0054]).
As to Claim 32, Stanek discloses a system, wherein, the predetermined period of time is a single driving session ([See at least 0032, 0033 and 0036).
As to Claim 33, Stanek discloses a system, wherein, the predetermined period of time is two or more driving sessions ([See at least 0036, 0041, 0051 and 0062).
As to Claim 34, Stanek discloses a system, wherein the processor is configured to determine that the mobile device is in the vehicle using the GPS receiver or the motion sensor([See at least 0023 and 0043]).
As to Claim 35, Stanek discloses a system, wherein the characteristic of the mobile device is a velocity of the mobile device or an acceleration of the mobile device ([See at least 0058 and 0059]).
As to Claim 36, Stanek discloses a system, wherein the characteristic of the mobile device is the velocity of the mobile device, and wherein the processor is further configured to: compare the velocity of the mobile device with a speed limit determined from a current position of the vehicle; and generate the unsafe driving alert in response to a determination that the velocity of the mobile device has exceeded the speed limit ([See at least 0029, 0035, 0058, 0059 and 0061]).
As to Claim 37, Stanek discloses a system, wherein the speed limit is increased by a predetermined offset amount before being compared with the velocity of the mobile device ([See at least 0029, 0035, 0058, 0059 and 0061]).
As to Claim 38, Stanek discloses a system, wherein the characteristic of the mobile device is the acceleration of the mobile device ([See at least 0058 and 0059]).
As to Claim 39, Stanek discloses a system, wherein the unsafe driving alert includes an audio alert delivered by the mobile device, or a visual alert displayed on the mobile device, or both the audio alert and the visual alert.
As to Claim 40, Stanek discloses a system, wherein the predetermined threshold for the characteristic is effected by night time conditions, rain conditions, snow conditions, fog conditions, wind conditions, congested traffic conditions, or any combination thereof ([See at least Fig.1, 0014, 0015 and 0039]).
As to Claim 41, Stanek discloses a system, wherein the unsafe driving report is transmitted in an email or a text message ([See at least 0036, 0037, 0038 and 0039]).
As to Claim 42, Stanek discloses a system, wherein the unsafe driving report includes a list of the unsafe driving alerts, including for each of the unsafe driving alerts on the list, date, time, user name, unsafe driving practice, location, or combinations thereof ([See at least 0036, 0037, 0038 and 0039]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAZAN A SOOFI whose telephone number is (469)295-9189. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached on 572-272-1516. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YAZAN A SOOFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668