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 the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application.
The filling date of this application number recited above is 30-July-2024. Domestic Benefit/National Stage priority has been claimed for Continuation Application 17/433,104, 371 of international PCT/US2020/019,554, Provisional Application 62/808,996, and Provisional Application 62/895,987 in the Application Data Sheet, thus the examination will be undertaken in consideration of 23-August-2021, 24-February-2020, 22-February-2019, and 04-September-2019, as the priority date, for applicable claims.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 31-July-2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 14 and 18 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 14, …” and Claim 18 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 18, …” wherein both claims are dependent claim on itself, and clarification is required. For the purposes of compact prosecution, claim 14 has been interpreted as “The safe driving incentive system of claim 13 …” and claim 18 has been interpreted as “The safe driving incentive system of claim 17 …”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea, Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
As per Claim 1, the claim recites “a safe driving incentive [entity] comprising:
a) an insurance company;
b) an incentive company that is separate from the insurance company;
c) a … payment from a … payer;
…
e) a monitoring [entity] that monitors driving metrics including location, speed and acceleration of said vehicle operated by a monitored driver; wherein the monitoring [entity] comprises:
i) a location services [worker] … for determining the location of said vehicle;
ii) a … transmitter for sending driving metrics to a database;
wherein the monitoring [entity] detects a driving speed and wherein said driving speed is compared with a posted speed limit based for a location of said vehicle … to determine if the monitored driver is speeding; and
wherein a reward payment from said incentive company is paid to said monitored driver for safe driving; and
wherein the reward payment is reduced when the monitoring [entity] detects speeding of the monitored driver;
wherein the location services [worker] utilizes … monitoring driving metrics …;
wherein … to determine the reward payment amount as a function of time, and wherein the monitoring [entity] produces a speeding alert … when speeding is detected and wherein the speeding alert is an audible alert … .”
The limitation of the claim recited above, considering the claim without the additional elements (e.g. system, device, sensor, etc.), under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), recites certain methods of organizing human activities, specifically under fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions. The method recited above is a process of providing rewards to the driver according to their driving behavior, which includes monitoring the driver’s speed based on the location and reducing the reward based on determining that the driver is speeding. The claim includes insurance company and the incentive company associated in the process, and provides reward payments for safe driving or reduced payments for unsafe driving, which are fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements of “system”, “global positioning system”, “sensor”, “mobile phone”, and “system App” to perform the method recited above by instructing the abstract idea to be performed “by” these generic computer components. The original disclosure discloses these additional elements as generic, off-the-shelf computer components that are available to the public, and does not require any specialized hardware components or equipment to perform the claimed method. These generic computer components are merely instructed to perform its basic functionalities, such as: receive data, determine data, compare data, and transmit data. These general computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system, or merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, transmit, or compare data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activities) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Although the claim may recite an additional element of a “vehicle”, this additional element is merely applied with the driving incentive system by using sensors, such as on-board diagnostic (OBD) device, without providing any improvements or changes to the vehicle itself (e.g. mere “apply it”). Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim also recites additional elements regarding the “mobile phone”, such as:
“wherein the location services system utilizes a mobile phone located in the vehicle for monitoring driving metrics and wherein the global positioning system is configured in part on said mobile phone;”
“wherein a mobile phone has a system App that interfaces with the monitoring system to determine the reward payment amount as a function of time”
“wherein the monitoring system produces a speeding alert on said mobile phone when speeding is detected and wherein the speeding alert is an audible alert emitted by the mobile phone.”
As similarly discussed above, the mobile phone and the system App is still a generic computer system merely applied to implement the abstract idea, wherein the mobile phone already includes a standard GPS system and speakers, as disclosed by Specification:
[0028] “The system App may monitor the monitored driver's driving through telematics and interfacing with the mobile phones global positioning system (GPS) … The system App may be configured to provide an audible alert or alarm through the mobile phone speaker when it detects that the monitored driver is speeding. A global positioning system (GPS) may use satellites, cell towers and a variety of other components including transceivers to determine a location and driving metrics of a vehicle, such as speed, acceleration, deceleration, etc. Some mobile devices, including mobile phones may have accelerometers, a type of acceleration sensor that may be used to measure acceleration and deceleration and this data may be supplied to the monitoring system”.
Mere “apply it” is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. The claims lack sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the mobile device, how it could improve the mobile device itself, how it could manipulate the mobile device to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on the generic computer system, or merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). In view of the Specification, the judicial exception is not applied with or used by a particular machine. As held in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1276, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), “the routine use of a computer to perform calculations cannot turn an otherwise ineligible mathematical formula or law of nature into patentable subject matter.” The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims, they are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the system payment is paid to the insurance company for an insurance premium of the system payer.” The claim provides further details regarding the payment, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 1, wherein the location services system is configured with the vehicle.” The claim provides further details regarding the location service system merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 1, wherein an incident of acceleration above an acceleration threshold value reduces the reward payment.” The claim provides further details regarding the data analysis (e.g. comparing acceleration to threshold value) to reduce reward payment, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 1, wherein an incident of deceleration above a deceleration threshold value reduces the reward payment.” The claim provides further details regarding the data analysis (e.g. comparing deceleration to threshold value) to reduce reward payment, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 1, wherein the location services system is configured with the vehicle and wherein the vehicle has a vehicle location services system that determines the monitored vehicles position, wherein the vehicle location services system utilizes one or more cameras to determine a position of said vehicle, and wherein the vehicle location services system determines the monitored vehicles position with respect to a roadway lane and wherein an incident of veering out of a roadway lane reduces the reward payment.” The claim provides further details regarding the location services system merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle location services system utilizes one or more cameras to determine a position of said vehicle; wherein the vehicle location services system determines a following distance of the vehicle with respect to a forward vehicle; and wherein an incident of tailgating, wherein the monitored vehicle is below a tailgate threshold distance reduces the reward payment.” The claim provides further details regarding the location services system (e.g. using cameras) merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 7, wherein the monitoring system comprises an On-board diagnostic (OBD) device that monitors driving metrics.” The claim provides further details regarding the monitoring system (e.g. OBD device) merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 7, wherein the driver rating is displayed on a display screen of the mobile phone.” The claim provides further details regarding the mobile phone (e.g. display screen) merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 7, wherein the system App detects when a texting App is opened and reduces said driver rating when the texting App is opened while driving.” The claim provides further details regarding the system App (e.g. texting App) merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 11 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 7, wherein the system App disables the texting App from opening when the driver is driving.” The claim provides further details regarding the system App (e.g. texting App) merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 12 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 7, wherein the mobile phone comprises a camera and wherein the monitoring system comprises a passenger confirmation features, wherein a photograph of the monitored driver as a passenger taken by the mobile phone is submitted to the monitoring system to confirm that the monitored driver was a passenger.” The claim provides further details regarding the mobile phone (e.g. camera) merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 13 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 7, wherein the system App comprises a driving event log display comprising a list of driving events for the monitored driver and wherein the driving event log display comprises a date and time of a driving event.” The claim provides further details regarding the system App (e.g. driving event log display) merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 14 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 14, wherein the driving event log display comprises a starting location and final location of a driving event” The claim provides further details regarding the driving event log display which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 15 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 14, wherein the driving event log display comprises a driver rating for the driving event.” The claim provides further details regarding the driving event log display which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 16 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 14, wherein the driving event log display comprises a passenger event indicator and wherein a photograph of a monitored driver is stored for a driving event as said passenger event indicator.” The claim provides further details regarding the driving event log display which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 17 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 15, wherein a photograph of a driver is stored for a driving event as said passenger event indicator.” The claim provides further details regarding the photograph which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 18 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 18, wherein the system payer can view said photograph of said driver for the driving event having the passenger event indicator.” The claim provides further details regarding the photograph which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 19 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 1, wherein the monitoring system detects when the driver is in a monitored vehicle.” The claim provides further details regarding the monitoring system merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 20 recites “The safe driving incentive system of claim 1, wherein the reward payment amount is displayed on the display screen of the mobile phone.” The claim provides further details regarding the mobile phone (e.g. display screen) merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
These additional steps of each claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claim above because they are merely further limiting the rules used to conduct the previously recited abstract idea, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
Claims 2-20, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are sufficient to integrate into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly to the independent claim, each claims recite using a generic computer system to perform the abstract idea (e.g. “apply it”) as mentioned above. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). Therefore, prong 2 and step 2B analysis are similar to above and these claims are not eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 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 1-5, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu-Hoffman et al. (US 9892573 B1) in view of Iqbal et al. (US 10373257 B1).
As per Claim 1, Hsu-Hoffman discloses a safe driving incentive system comprising:
a) an insurance company ([Col 11 Lines 57-61] “For example, in a case where the vehicle telematics management system is provided by an insurance provider, the administrator may be any personnel of the insurance provider with authorization to make changes/updates to the system”);
b) an incentive company that is separate from the insurance company ([Col 16 Lines 25-37] “In some instances, the driver may be rewarded by a charitable donation being made to a predetermined or desired charity. A charitable donation may be a financial contribution of funds to a charity of the organization or the driver's choosing. For example, a sponsor (such as … other corporation) may pledge to give fifty dollars to a charity for every driver who reaches level five in a predetermined period of time, such as within a month, with a maximum pledge of ten thousand dollars for the month. At the end of the month the sponsor may donate the money raised to the charity of their choosing, and/or allow the drivers to select and/or vote on a charity to receive the funds”);
…
d) a vehicle ([Col 2 Lines 47-50] “In accordance with various aspects of the disclosure, methods, computer-readable media, software, and apparatuses are disclosed that provide a vehicle with a telematics management system”);
e) a monitoring system that monitors driving metrics including location, speed and acceleration of said vehicle operated by a monitored driver ([Col 7 Lines 37 to 52] “In some embodiments, the driver computing device 100c and/or vehicle computing device 100v may also be configured to collect drive data using various sensors, e.g., an accelerometer, GPS, gyroscope, etc. of the driver computing device 100c, sensors 220 of the vehicle 202, or the vehicle computing device 100v, or a combination thereof … For example, drive data may include location information such as GPS coordinates that indicate the geographical location of the driver computing device 100c as well as speed and acceleration data that may be used to detect speeding (e.g., exceeding a predefined speed or known speed limit) and hard-braking events”);
wherein the monitoring system comprises:
i) a location services system comprising a global positioning system including sensors for determining the location of said vehicle ([Col 7 Lines 37 to 52] “In some embodiments, the driver computing device 100c and/or vehicle computing device 100v may also be configured to collect drive data using various sensors, e.g. …GPS … of the driver computing device 100c, sensors 220 of the vehicle 202, or the vehicle computing device 100v, or a combination thereof … For example, drive data may include location information such as GPS coordinates that indicate the geographical location of the driver computing device 100c …”);
ii) a wireless transmitter for sending driving metrics to a database ([Col 7 Lines 52-58] “The driver computing device 100c or vehicle computing device 100v may be further configured to evaluate the drive data and to send notifications to the vehicle telematics management system (e.g., driving analysis server 205). In particular, the driver computing devices 100c and/or vehicle computing device 100v may send the results for a given drive to the driving analysis server 205”);
wherein the monitoring system detects a driving speed and wherein said driving speed is compared with a posted speed limit based for a location of said vehicle as determined by said global positioning system to determine if the monitored driver is speeding ([Col 7 Lines 46-51] “For example, drive data may include location information such as GPS coordinates that indicate the geographical location of the driver computing device 100c as well as speed and acceleration data that may be used to detect speeding (e.g., exceeding a predefined speed or known speed limit)” and see also [Col 13 Lines 14-31] “In some arrangements, the computing device 100c may receive telematics information indicating that the vehicle 202 is traveling at a certain speed. In some instances, the computing device 100c may record the speed of the vehicle … In some instances, the restricted speed may vary based on a speed limit. For example, the computing device 100c may obtain the speed limit for a road on which the vehicle is traveling, and the driver may be restricted from exceeding 5 mph over the speed limit. The computing device 100c may, in some examples, continually determine speed information for the duration of the drive”); and
wherein a reward payment from said incentive company is paid to said monitored driver for safe driving ([Col 2 Lines 53-64] “The vehicle telematics management system may allow a driver or other user to monitor the driving performance of a driver, share the driving performance data, and/or receive rewards for their driving performance. For example, the vehicle telematics system may generate a rating for a driver based on driving behaviors (as determined, for instance, from vehicle telematics data), such as speeding and braking, and allow the driver to publish their driving performance (such as by sharing a driver rating or level earned based on the rating via, for instance, social media). In some instances, a monetary or financial reward may be given for good driving, which may be given to the driver”); and
wherein the reward payment is reduced when the monitoring system detects speeding of the monitored driver ([Col 2 Lines 62-67] “In some instances, a monetary or financial reward may be given for good driving, which may be given to the driver … In some instances, the system may penalize the driver … if performance metrics are not met (e.g., driving outside a geo-fence, driving at high speeds, braking too hard, cornering too hard, etc.)”);
wherein the location services system utilizes a mobile phone located in the vehicle for monitoring driving metrics and wherein the global positioning system is configured in part on said mobile phone ([Col 6 Lines 59-67] “Accordingly, for example, a driver computing device 100c (e.g., a first smartphone) of a teenager in vehicle 202 may communicate, via a cellular backhaul of the network 201, with a driving analysis server 205 … While FIG. 2 depicts arrows pointing to the vehicle 202, it should be understood that the connections may be made with the driver computing device 100c and/or vehicle computing device 100v within the vehicle 202. For example, the driver computing device 100c and/or vehicle computing device 100v may communicate with a satellite 203 to obtain GPS coordinates … Further, it should be understood that the driver computing device 100c (e.g., a smartphone) …” and see also [Col 3 Lines 31-37] “The vehicle telematics management system may be implemented using mobile user devices (e.g., smartphones, tablet computing devices, laptops, etc.). For example, a driver's smartphone may be configured to collect and evaluate vehicle telematics data using vehicle operation sensors (e.g., using sensors within the mobile device and/or by communicating with sensors arranged in a vehicle)”);
Although Hsu-Hoffman teaches a system to determine the user’s driving behavior (e.g. speeding) by utilizing GPS which also uses the mobile phone, providing monetary or financial rewards for good driving, and penalizing the driver for speeding, the prior art does not seem to explicitly disclose that the reward payment is “reduced” when the driver is speeding, or provide an audible notification when the user is speeding. However, Iqbal teaches:
c) a system payment from a system payer ([Col 47 Lines 22-25] “Further, eligibility for the teen safety service may depend on a status of the customer (e.g., whether they are a regular customer paying a regular insurance premium or a preferred customer paying a higher insurance premium)”);
…
wherein a reward payment from said incentive company is paid to said monitored driver for safe driving (See Figure 30 - steps 3005 to 3009, as disclosed [Col 57 Lines 52-67 to Col 58 Lines 1-43] "For example, the parent may set in the contract that three (3) speeding violations are acceptable ... At step 3008, the system may determine if the driver passed the challenge based on the driving data ... At step 3012, the system may determine whether the driver may receive a reward and may record the reward in a reward bank associated with the driver" wherein the reward may be set as monetary awards, as disclosed [Col 21 Lines 40-46] “Further, registration at step 403 may also include setting up an account for tracking rewards obtained by children and other subordinates when they exhibit acceptable driving behavior. When setting up such a rewards account a user may indicate which type of awards are desired (e.g., monetary awards, points, prizes, etc.)”); and
wherein the reward payment is reduced when the monitoring system detects speeding of the monitored driver (See Figure 30 - steps 3005 to 3009, as disclosed [Col 57 Lines 52-67 to Col 58 Lines 1-43] "For example, the parent may set in the contract that three (3) speeding violations are acceptable. At step 3009, the method may include determining if the driver should have a reward deducted from the driver's reward bank … In some embodiments, a loss of a reward may result in a deduction of points, prizes, gifts, loss of clothing, moving passes, music downloads, etc. ... At step 3008, the system may determine if the driver passed the challenge based on the driving data. If, at step 3008, it is determined that the driver did not pass the challenge, the method may proceed to step 3009 where the driver may be penalized by loss of a reward");
…
wherein a mobile phone has a system App that interfaces with the monitoring system to determine the reward payment amount as a function of time ([Col 44 Lines 23-35] “FIG. 14 illustrates another user interface 1400 displaying a performance of the driver for a particular trip. As shown in FIG. 14, the user interface 1400 may indicate a driving score (e.g., 90 out of a possible 100), a projected bonus, and an amount of a monetary reward (e.g., $25). The user interface 1400 of FIG. 14 illustrates some of the vehicle telematics data that may have been obtained during the trip as well. Specifically, the user interface 1400 may indicate … a time of day score (reflecting a level of risk associated with the time at which the trip took place)”), and
wherein the monitoring system produces a speeding alert on said mobile phone when speeding is detected ([Col 9 Lines 37-57] “The vehicle telematics management system may be implemented using mobile user devices (e.g., smartphones). For example, a driver's smartphone may be configured to collect and evaluate vehicle telematics data. When certain restrictions are violated, the driver's smartphone may be configured to transmit a notification to one or more other devices … Some aspects include transmitting a notification after … a vehicle exceeds a certain speed … The central computing device may determine whether any conditions (e.g., parental restrictions) have been met and whether notifications should be sent. The central computing device may then cause transmission of the appropriate notification to the appropriate devices (child computing device, parent computing device, or both)” and also [Col 9 Lines 66-67 to Col 10 Lines 1-14] “The notifications may be sent as driving events take place (e.g., in real time) … Other aspects of the system may include notifying the child (or subordinate) of their violation”) and wherein the speeding alert is an audible alert emitted by the mobile phone ([Col 33 Lines 52-57] “Additionally, or alternatively, when a condition is met at step 429, the child computing device 100c may output an alert to the child (and others in the vicinity of the child computing device 100c) informing the child that the condition was met. The alert may take various forms, such as an alarm or other sound, an audible message …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the mobile phone with system App interfaces and the notification system, and deducting the reward for speeding violations wherein the reward may be set as monetary awards, as in Iqbal in the system executing the method of Hsu-Hoffman which already teaches of providing rewards for good driving and penalizing for speeding, with the motivation of offering to [Col 4 Lines 24-25] “encourage or incentivize safe driving behavior” and [Col 58 Lines 40-43] “incentivize to continue driving in a particular (e.g., safe) manner” which also [Col 4 Lines 38-51] “increase interactions with users, engage users in a positive environment (e.g., helping parents monitor their teen's driving), and build user loyalty … provide benefits that assist in retaining users (e.g., may improve customer retention), it may also cut down on the service provider's costs (e.g., insurance costs) by encouraging safe driving behavior. Safe driving may lead to fewer accidents thereby reducing costs of insuring users. Further, by involving parents in the monitoring process, service providers (such as insurance companies) can reduce the burden of having to analyze vehicle telematics data themselves” as taught by Iqbal over that of Hsu-Hoffman.
As per Claim 2, Hsu-Hoffman may not explicitly disclose, but Iqbal discloses the safe driving incentive system of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the system payment is paid to the insurance company for an insurance premium of the system payer ([Col 47 Lines 22-25] “Further, eligibility for the teen safety service may depend on a status of the customer (e.g., whether they are a regular customer paying a regular insurance premium or a preferred customer paying a higher insurance premium)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the insurance premium payments for providing services as in Iqbal in the system executing the method of Hsu-Hoffman which the system is in the field of insurance, with the motivation of offering to [Col 4 Lines 38-51] “increase interactions with users, engage users in a positive environment (e.g., helping parents monitor their teen's driving), and build user loyalty … provide benefits that assist in retaining users (e.g., may improve customer retention), it may also cut down on the service provider's costs (e.g., insurance costs) by encouraging safe driving behavior. Safe driving may lead to fewer accidents thereby reducing costs of insuring users. Further, by involving parents in the monitoring process, service providers (such as insurance companies) can reduce the burden of having to analyze vehicle telematics data themselves” as taught by Iqbal over that of Hsu-Hoffman.
As per Claim 3, Hsu-Hoffman discloses the safe driving incentive system of claim 1, wherein the location services system is configured with the vehicle ([Col 7 Lines 37-49] “In some embodiments, the driver computing device 100c and/or vehicle computing device 100v may also be configured to collect drive data using various sensors, e.g., an accelerometer, GPS, gyroscope, etc. of the driver computing device 100c, sensors 220 of the vehicle 202, or the vehicle computing device 100v, or a combination thereof … For example, drive data may include location information such as GPS coordinates that indicate the geographical location of the driver computing device 100c …”).
As per Claim 4, Hsu-Hoffman may not explicitly disclose, but Iqbal discloses the safe driving incentive system of claim 1, wherein an incident of acceleration above an acceleration threshold value reduces the reward payment ([Col 33 Lines 1-7] “In addition to checking for a speeding event (where a vehicle 202 violates a speed related restriction), the child device program may also determine whether … over-acceleration has occurred. These determinations may be made by comparing drive data (e.g., data from an accelerometer) against conditions set up by a parent (or other superior)” wherein [Col 10 Lines 12-15] “Other aspects of the system may include notifying the child (or subordinate) of their violation, deducting points/money from an account when a violation occurs”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the check on acceleration data as in Iqbal in the system executing the method of Hsu-Hoffman which already teaches of rewarding for good driving and penalizing for bad driving, with the motivation of offering to [Col 4 Lines 38-51] “increase interactions with users, engage users in a positive environment (e.g., helping parents monitor their teen's driving), and build user loyalty … provide benefits that assist in retaining users (e.g., may improve customer retention), it may also cut down on the service provider's costs (e.g., insurance costs) by encouraging safe driving behavior. Safe driving may lead to fewer accidents thereby reducing costs of insuring users. Further, by involving parents in the monitoring process, service providers (such as insurance companies) can reduce the burden of having to analyze vehicle telematics data themselves” as taught by Iqbal over that of Hsu-Hoffman.
As per Claim 5, Hsu-Hoffman may not explicitly disclose, but Iqbal discloses the safe driving incentive system of claim 1, wherein an incident of deceleration above a deceleration threshold value reduces the reward payment ([Col 29 Lines 3-6] “For example, the drive data may reflect whether the vehicle 202 is being driven well (e.g., smoothly accelerating and decelerating) or safely or is being driven poorly or recklessly” wherein the deceleration data may have restrictions set as violations as disclosed [Col 9 Lines 30-36] “The vehicle telematics management system may evaluate vehicle telematics data and communicate notifications to an auto-insurance company or rental car company if certain conditions are met, such as the violations of one or more restrictions (e.g., speed restrictions, acceleration/deceleration restrictions, etc.)” by which [Col 10 Lines 12-15] “Other aspects of the system may include notifying the child (or subordinate) of their violation, deducting points/money from an account when a violation occurs”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the check on deceleration data as in Iqbal in the system executing the method of Hsu-Hoffman which already teaches of rewarding for good driving and penalizing for bad driving, with the motivation of offering to [Col 4 Lines 38-51] “increase interactions with users, engage users in a positive environment (e.g., helping parents monitor their teen's driving), and build user loyalty … provide benefits that assist in retaining users (e.g., may improve customer retention), it may also cut down on the service provider's costs (e.g., insurance costs) by encouraging safe driving behavior. Safe driving may lead to fewer accidents thereby reducing costs of insuring users. Further, by involving parents in the monitoring process, service providers (such as insurance companies) can reduce the burden of having to analyze vehicle telematics data themselves” as taught by Iqbal over that of Hsu-Hoffman.
As per Claim 15, Hsu-Hoffman may not explicitly disclose, but Iqbal discloses the safe driving incentive system of claim 14, wherein the driving event log display comprises a driver rating for the driving event (See Figure 14, as disclosed [Col 44 Lines 23-26] “FIG. 14 illustrates another user interface 1400 displaying a performance of the driver for a particular trip. As shown in FIG. 14, the user interface 1400 may indicate a driving score (e.g., 90 out of a possible 100)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize trip report including a driver score as in Iqbal in the system executing the method of Hsu-Hoffman, with the motivation of offering to [Col 4 Lines 38-51] “increase interactions with users, engage users in a positive environment (e.g., helping parents monitor their teen's driving), and build user loyalty … provide benefits that assist in retaining users (e.g., may improve customer retention), it may also cut down on the service provider's costs (e.g., insurance costs) by encouraging safe driving behavior. Safe driving may lead to fewer accidents thereby reducing costs of insuring users. Further, by involving parents in the monitoring process, service providers (such as insurance companies) can reduce the burden of having to analyze vehicle telematics data themselves” as taught by Iqbal over that of Hsu-Hoffman.
As per Claim 16, Hsu-Hoffman may not explicitly disclose, but Iqbal discloses the safe driving incentive system of claim 14, wherein the driving event log display comprises a passenger event indicator and wherein a photograph of a monitored driver is stored for a driving event as said passenger event indicator (See Figure 11, as disclosed [Col 42 Lines 42-49] “When such a determination is made, the child device program may generate a user interface 1105 as shown in FIG. 11 to inquire whether the child is the driver or not. For example, the user interface 1105 may include a prompt, as described with respect to step 419, that allows a user (e.g., the child associated with the child computing device 100c) to indicate whether he/she is the driver of the vehicle 202”, wherein the child’s photograph is stored for comparison to determine the driver’s identity, as disclosed [Col 30 Lines 52-67] “Alternatively, or additionally, the child computing device 100c may detect the position of the child within the vehicle 202 using sensors (e.g., image sensors, such as a camera), and determine whether the child is the driver based on the detected position. In some embodiments, the vehicle computing device 100v may detect the child's position and/or determine the driver (e.g., by … an image of the driver, a retinal scan of the driver, etc.), and share this information with the child computing device 100c. For example, if the vehicle device 100v determines an identity of the driver and informs the child computing device 100c of the driver's identity, the child computing device 100c may determine that the identity does not match the child and conclude that the child is not the driver”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize passenger event indicator as in Iqbal in the system executing the method of Hsu-Hoffman, with the motivation of offering to [Col 4 Lines 38-51] “increase interactions with users, engage users in a positive environment (e.g., helping parents monitor their teen's driving), and build user loyalty … provide benefits that assist in retaining users (e.g., may improve customer retention), it may also cut down on the service provider's costs (e.g., insurance costs) by encouraging safe driving behavior. Safe driving may lead to fewer accidents thereby reducing costs of insuring users. Further, by involving parents in the monitoring process, service providers (such as insurance companies) can reduce the burden of having to analyze vehicle telematics data themselves” as taught by Iqbal over that of Hsu-Hoffman.
As per Claim 17, Hsu-Hoffman may not explicitly disclose, but Iqbal discloses the safe driving incentive system of claim 15, wherein a photograph of a driver is stored for a driving event as said passenger event indicator ([Col 30 Lines 52-67] “Alternatively, or additionally, the child computing device 100c may detect the position of the child within the vehicle 202 using sensors (e.g., image sensors, such as a camera), and determine whether the child is the driver based on the detected position. In some embodiments, the vehicle computing device 100v may detect the child's position and/or determine the driver (e.g., by … an image of the driver, a retinal scan of the driver, etc.), and share this information with the child computing device 100c. For example, if the vehicle device 100v determines an identity of the driver and informs the child computing device 100c of the driver's identity, the child computing device 100c may determine that the identity does not match the child and conclude that the child is not the driver”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize stored photograph of driver for passenger event indicator as in Iqbal in the system executing the method of Hsu-Hoffman, with the motivation of offering to [Col 4 Lines 38-51] “increase interactions with users, engage users in a positive environment (e.g., helping parents monitor their teen's driving), and build user loyalty … provide benefits that assist in retaining users (e.g., may improve customer retention), it may also cut down on the service provider's costs (e.g., insurance costs) by encouraging safe driving behavior. Safe driving may lead to fewer accidents thereby reducing costs of insuring users. Further, by involving parents in the monitoring process, service providers (such as insurance companies) can reduce the burden of having to analyze vehicle telematics data themselves” as taught by Iqbal over that of Hsu-Hoffman.
As per Claim 19, Hsu-Hoffman discloses the safe driving incentive system of claim 1, wherein the monitoring system detects when the driver is in a monitored vehicle ([Col 3 Lines 44-49] “The vehicle telematics management system may also automatically detect when a vehicle starts and stops, thereby facilitating collection of vehicle telematics data. For example, a driver's smartphone may execute an application in the background so that it may automatically detect when the driver is in a moving vehicle”).
As per Claim 20, Hsu-Hoffman may not explicitly disclose, but Iqbal discloses the safe driving incentive system of claim 1, wherein the reward payment amount is displayed on the display screen of the mobile phone (See Figure 14, as disclosed ([Col 44 Lines 23-35] “FIG. 14 illustrates another user interface 1400 displaying a performance of the driver for a particular trip. As shown in FIG. 14, the user interface 1400 may indicate … an amount of a monetary reward (e.g., $25)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize displaying the reward payment amount as in Iqbal in the system executing the method of Hsu-Hoffman which already teaches of providing rewards for good driving, with the motivation of offering to [Col 4 Lines 38-51] “increase interactions with users, engage users in a positive environment (e.g., helping parents monitor their teen's driving), and build user loyalty … provide benefits that assist in retaining users (e.g., may improve customer retention), it may also cut down on the service provider's costs (e.g., insurance costs) by encouraging safe driving behavior. Safe driving may lead to fewer accidents thereby reducing costs of insuring users. Further, by involving parents in the monitoring process, service providers (such as insurance companies) can reduce the burden of having to analyze vehicle telematics data themselves” as taught by Iqbal over that of Hsu-Hoffman.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu-Hoffman, in view of Iqbal, and in view of Ferguson (US 10032318 B1).
As per Claim 6, Hsu-Hoffman may not explicitly disclose, but Ferguson discloses the safe driving incentive system of claim 1, wherein the location services system is configured with the vehicle and wherein the vehicle has a vehicle location services system that determines the monitored vehicles position, wherein the vehicle location services system utilizes one or more cameras to determine a position of said vehicle ([Col 9 Lines 21-32] “In certain embodiments, the telematics device 216 may be configured to communicate with the sensors 212 and/or cameras and/or proximity sensors 214 to determine when and how often the vehicle 210 stays in a single lane or strays into other lanes. To determine the vehicle's route, lane position, and other data, the telematics device 216 and/or the mobile device may include or may receive data from one or more of a mobile telephone, a Global Positioning System (GPS), a locational sensor positioned inside a vehicle, or a locational sensor (e.g., a roadside positional sensor) or other device remote from the vehicle 210”), and
wherein the vehicle location services system determines the monitored vehicles position with respect to a roadway lane and wherein an incident of veering out of a roadway lane reduces the reward payment ([Col 9 Lines 21-25] “In certain embodiments, the telematics device 216 may be configured to communicate with the sensors 212 and/or cameras and/or proximity sensors 214 to determine when and how often the vehicle 210 stays in a single lane or strays into other lanes” wherein the driving events (e.g. veering out of lane) may cause the video to be recorded as disclosed [Col 22 Lines 22-28] “FIG. 7 illustrates a vehicle 240b performing a driving event of an unsafe lane change, where vehicle may capture a video within the field of view 215, the vehicle 710 may capture the video of the driving event within the field of view 715a, and vehicle 710b may capture the video of the driving event within the field of view 715b”, wherein the recorded video may be rated to adjust or remove the incentives or rewards to be provided to the user, as disclosed [Col 18 Lines 62-67 to Col 19 Lines 1-27] “The driving event may correspond to a dangerous activity performed by the driver of the other vehicle 240, such as hard turning, hard braking, swerving, improper lane usage, tailgating, or otherwise not driving with sufficient caution based on the conditions. At 404, if the customer enrolls, the insurance provider may allow the customer to select a desired incentive. In other cases, the insurance provider may assign a particular incentive to the customer. The incentives may include a discount to an insurance premium, points to be applied to another existing rewards program, cash payments based on a number of videos provided and/or the quality of the videos or ratings provided. The incentives selected may be adjusted and/or removed based on the performance of the customer, e.g., based on the number of videos provided and/or the quality of the videos or ratings provided. In some cases, the incentives selected may be adjusted and/or removed based on a video quality and/or the performance of the video once uploaded to a social network for viewing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the check on lane change data as in Ferguson in the system executing the method of Hsu-Hoffman which already teaches of rewarding for good driving and penalizing for bad driving, with the motivation of offering to incentivizing users for safe driving by providing video recordings of incidents to aid in rewarding for good driving and penalizing for bad driving as taught by Ferguson over that of Hsu-Hoffman.
Claims 7-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu-Hoffman, in view of Iqbal, and in view of Boss et al. (US 20110087525 A1).
As per Claim 7, Hsu-Hoffman discloses the safe driving incentive system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle location services system utilizes one or more cameras to determine a position of said vehicle ([Col 9 Lines 32-42] “The operational sensors 220 also may include one or more cameras and proximity sensors capable of recording additional conditions inside or outside of the vehicle 202. Internal cameras may detect conditions such as the number of the passengers in the vehicle 202, and potential sources of driver distraction within the vehicle (e.g., pets, phone usage, unsecured objects in the vehicle). External cameras and proximity sensors may detect other nearby vehicles, traffic levels, road conditions, traffic obstructions, animals, cyclists, pedestrians, and other conditions that may factor into a driving analysis”);
Hsu-Hoffman may not explicitly disclose, but Boss teaches:
wherein the vehicle location services system determines a following distance of the vehicle with respect to a forward vehicle ([0004] “receiving proximity data detected at a first time within a time period P by a plurality of proximity sensor systems included in a plurality of vehicles, wherein the proximity data includes a one or more distances between a vehicle and a plurality of vehicles, and wherein a distance of the one or more distances is a measure of distance between the vehicle and another vehicle immediately in front of the vehicle”); and
wherein an incident of tailgating, wherein the monitored vehicle is below a tailgate threshold distance reduces the reward payment ([0006] “identifying N tailgating incidents within the time period P, wherein N.gtoreq.1, wherein identifying N tailgating incidents is based on one or more determinations that the distance is less than a first predefined threshold value for a tailgating distance” wherein [0048] “In step 216-3, computer system 102 (see FIG. 1) determines a variable incentive or disincentive amount by evaluating a function f. The function f is a function of a base value (a.k.a. base amount) B and N (i.e., the number of tailgating incidents identified in step 216-1)” and [0049] “A disincentive provided in step 216-4 deters a second driving behavior (e.g., tailgating) by the driver. That is, a disincentive provided in step 216-4 decreases the likelihood that the driver will engage in an environmentally unsound driving behavior (e.g., tailgating). In one embodiment, performing step 216-4 for a first driver and a second driver may provide the first driver with an incentive to encourage a first driving behavior and the second driver with a disincentive to deter a second driving behavior”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the tailgating data to provide disincentive to the driver as in Boss in the system executing the method of Hsu-Hoffman which already teaches of rewarding for good driving and penalizing for bad driving, wherein the system of Iqbal teaches of deducting reward payments, with the motivation of offering to [0001] “improve driving patterns based on driving behavior information” and “promote environmentally-friendly driving patterns via variable incentives and/or variable disincentives based on driving behavior of individual drivers” as taught by Boss over that of Hsu-Hoffman.
As per Claim 8, Hsu-Hoffman discloses the safe driving incentive system of claim 7, wherein the monitoring system comprises an On-board diagnostic device that monitors driving metrics ([Col 8 Lines 57-59] “For example, the vehicle computing device 100v may include the vehicle's on-board diagnostic (OBD) system”).
As per Claim 9, Hsu-Hoffman discloses the safe driving incentive system of claim 7, wherein the driver rating is displayed on a display screen of the mobile phone (See Figure 4, as disclosed [Col 16 Lines 53-57] “FIG. 4 illustrates a user interface 400 displaying an example rating screen for an example driver device program on a screen of a driver computing device 100c. The driver computing device 100c may be a smartphone, and the user interface 400 may be part of a smartphone app”).
As per Claim 12, Hsu-Hoffman may not explicitly disclose, but Iqbal discloses the safe driving incentive system of claim 7, wherein the mobile phone comprises a camera and wherein the monitoring system comprises a passenger confirmation features, wherein a photograph of the monitored driver as a passenger taken by the mobile phone is submitted to the monitoring system to confirm that the monitored driver was a passenger ([Col 30 Lines 52-67] “Alternatively, or additionally, the child computing device 100c may detect the position of the child within the vehicle 202 using sensors (e.g., image sensors, such as a camera), and determine whether the child is the driver based on the detected position. In some embodiments, the vehicle computing device 100v may detect the child's position and/or determine the driver (e.g., by … an image of the driver, a retinal scan of the driver, etc.), and share this information with the child computing device 100c. For example, if the vehicle device 100v determines an identity of the driver and informs the child computing device 100c of the driver's identity, the child computing device 100c may determine that the identity does not match the child and conclude that the child is not the driver”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize camera for passenger confirmation as in Iqbal in the system executing the method of Hsu-Hoffman which also teaches of using cameras to detect passengers disclosed in [Col 9 Lines 35-38] “Internal cameras may detect conditions such as the number of the passengers in the vehicle 202”, with the motivation of offering to [Col 4 Lines 38-51] “increase interactions with users, engage users in a positive environment (e.g., helping parents monitor their teen's driving), and build user loyalty … provide benefits that assist in retaining users (e.g., may improve customer retention), it may also cut down on the service provider's costs (e.g., insurance costs) by encouraging safe driving behavior. Safe driving may lead to fewer accidents thereby reducing costs of insuring users. Further, by involving parents in the monitoring process, service providers (such as insurance companies) can reduce the burden of having to analyze vehicle telematics data themselves” as taught by Iqbal over that of Hsu-Hoffman.
As per Claim 13, Hsu-Hoffman may not explicitly disclose, but Iqbal discloses the safe driving incentive system of claim 7, wherein the system App comprises a driving event log display comprising a list of driving events for the monitored driver and wherein the driving event log display comprises a date and time of a driving event (See Figure 12, as disclosed [Col 43 Lines 49-52] “FIG. 12 further illustrates a user interface 1210 that provides a trip report indicating trip details. As shown in FIG. 12, the user interface 1210 may indicate time and date of a trip”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize trip report including date and time as in Iqbal in the system executing the method of Hsu-Hoffman, with the motivation of offering to [Col 4 Lines 38-51] “increase interactions with users, engage users in a positive environment (e.g., helping parents monitor their teen's driving), and build user loyalty … provide benefits that assist in retaining users (e.g., may improve customer retention), it may also cut down on the service provider's costs (e.g., insurance costs) by encouraging safe driving behavior. Safe driving may lead to fewer accidents thereby reducing costs of insuring users. Further, by involving parents in the monitoring process, service providers (such as insurance companies) can reduce the burden of having to analyze vehicle telematics data themselves” as taught by Iqbal over that of Hsu-Hoffman.
As per Claim 14, Hsu-Hoffman may not explicitly disclose, but Iqbal discloses the safe driving incentive system of claim [14] 13, wherein the driving event log display comprises a starting location and final location of a driving event (See Figure 13, as disclosed [Col 43 Lines 60-67] “FIG. 13 illustrates another example of a user interface 1300 that provides a trip report … Further, the user interface 1300 may include a link to a map showing the route of the trip”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize trip report including a map showing the route of the trip as in Iqbal in the system executing the method of Hsu-Hoffman, with the motivation of offering to [Col 4 Lines 38-51] “increase interactions with users, engage users in a positive environment (e.g., helping parents monitor their teen's driving), and build user loyalty … provide benefits that assist in retaining users (e.g., may improve customer retention), it may also cut down on the service provider's costs (e.g., insurance costs) by encouraging safe driving behavior. Safe driving may lead to fewer accidents thereby reducing costs of insuring users. Further, by involving parents in the monitoring process, service providers (such as insurance companies) can reduce the burden of having to analyze vehicle telematics data themselves” as taught by Iqbal over that of Hsu-Hoffman.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu-Hoffman, in view of Iqbal, in view of Boss, and in view of Rhyne (US 20170310804 A1).
As per Claim 10, Hsu-Hoffman may not explicitly disclose, but Rhyne discloses the safe driving incentive system of claim 7, wherein the system App detects when a texting App is opened and reduces said driver rating when the texting App is opened while driving ([0063] “The scoring system illustrated in FIG. 3 shows the total time that the device is “on” in an illustrative example … If the device is “off” or “disengaged,” then this data will be stored in the device and eventually transmitted to the mobile phone application … The “connected” state is the total time when the mobile phone application and device are connected and overlaps with the “on” state. The alarm, telephone calling, texting, emailing, using certain prohibited applications on the mobile phone, and/or other infractions can also be monitored, with appropriate scoring deductions applied for engaging in such behavior”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize reducing the driver’s points when texting is detected as in Rhyne in the system executing the method of Hsu-Hoffman which already teaches of the reward system with driver scoring, with the motivation of offering to [0006] “reduce or monitor distracted driving as distracted driving is a contributor to many car crashes” as taught by Rhyne over that of Hsu-Hoffman.
As per Claim 11, Hsu-Hoffman may not explicitly disclose, but Rhyne discloses the safe driving incentive system of claim 7, wherein the system App disables the texting App from opening when the driver is driving ([0028] “In another aspect of the invention, when the device and the mobile phone application are connected, a software application on the mobile phone is used to monitor, control, and prevent usage of certain features of the mobile phone while the user is driving. When the mobile phone application is connected with the device, the mobile phone may have reduced functionality, as may be determined by an administrator or user through the user's profile by selecting to disable certain available features or through a pre-defined user profile in the mobile phone application's settings, such as limiting or preventing all text messaging, limiting or preventing the use of email, limiting or preventing the use of certain applications, and limiting or preventing the use of telephone calls”, see also Figures 9 and 10 regarding features of disabling texting while driving).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize disabling the texting functionality of the mobile phone while driving as in Rhyne in the system executing the method of Hsu-Hoffman which already teaches of the reward system with good driving behaviors, with the motivation of offering to [0006] “reduce or monitor distracted driving as distracted driving is a contributor to many car crashes” as taught by Rhyne over that of Hsu-Hoffman.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu-Hoffman, in view of Iqbal, and in view of Sudak (US 20170076396 A1).
As per Claim 18, Hsu-Hoffman may not explicitly disclose, but Sudak discloses the safe driving incentive system of claim 18, wherein the system payer can view said photograph of said driver for the driving event having the passenger event indicator ([0060] “At least part of the image capture means, e.g. a lens thereof, is preferably positioned or positionable to capture one or more images or videos of an interior of the vehicle, e.g. an image of the individual or driver attempting to initiate the journey and/or of one or more passengers within the vehicle” wherein the captured data (e.g. photograph of driver) is alerted to the authorized individual, as disclosed [0042] “The system may be configured to store the captured data, e.g. together with one or more details of the identified authorised individual. The data may be stored in a folder allocated to the identified authorised individual. Additionally or alternatively, the system may be configured or programmed or operable to send at least some of the captured data to an authority, e.g. together with data relating to or one or more details of the identified authorised individual”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize allowing the authorized individual to see the photograph of the driver as in Sudak in the system executing the method of Hsu-Hoffman which already teaches of comparing pictures of the driver with stored data, with the motivation of offering to provide an improved system to [0006] “enable insurance companies to determine more accurately the risks being insured” and to [0007] “determine compliance, preferably one that is more versatile than known systems and methods” as taught by Sudak over that of Hsu-Hoffman.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Purgatorio et al. (US 10915964 B1) discloses [Abstract] “Systems and methods are provided for encouraging and rewarding safe driving. A safe driving evaluation system determines the safe driving behaviors necessary to earn safe driving points. The safe driving evaluation system receives vehicle telematics data from a telematics device configured to obtain vehicle telematics data during the operation of a vehicle, and determines safe driving points based on the safe driving behaviors exhibited by the vehicle telematics data. Safe driving rewards are provided where the total number of safe driving points earned by a driver exceeds predefined thresholds. The safe driving rewards may be redeemed for discounts on products or vehicle services, or for fixed prices on gas. In addition, the safe driving points may be transferred to another individual for redemption”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H JUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5018. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Christine M Tran (Behncke) can be reached at (571) 272-8103. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HENRY H JUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M BEHNCKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights