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 the Claims
This Final action is in response to the applicant’s amendment/response of March 18, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 10, 2025 and April 8, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the objection to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection to the claims as presented in the Office Action of December 16, 2025 has been withdrawn. However, new objection to the claims is presented below based on the amendments to the claims presented in the Amendment of 18 March 2026.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 USC §112(b) as presented in the Office Action of December 16, 2025 has been withdrawn. However, new rejection of claims under 35 USC §112(b) is presented below based on the amendments to the claims presented in the Amendment of 18 March 2026.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argues:
Applicant traverses this rejection at least on the grounds that the Office Action does not demonstrate the claims are directed to an abstract idea. For example, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the Office Action fails to clearly articulate a semantically coherent concept present in the claims which is supposedly an abstract idea, and/or the Office Action does not demonstrate a concept in the independent claims falls within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP.
…
At page 6 of the Office Action, it is asserted that the following constitutes "a limitation" of the present claims:
…
The appearance of this text within different sets of quotation marks is completely inaccurate, as this language omits language present with similar text each of claims 1 and 11 and does not acknowledge with brackets or ellipsis the omitted text. Why are quotation marks used? What do they connote? They certainly do not reflect an accurate reproduction of the actual language of the claims.
The reference to a single "limitation" is also confusing. The text presented above includes verbiage from multiple stanzas of each of claims 1 and 11, and includes no less than four separate verbs requiring at least three separate actions. Is the Office Action alleging that a body of text quoted inaccurately from multiple claim stanzas, and which is so long it exceeds an acceptable length of a patent application abstract, a single limitation? Rather than identifying the "focus of the claim" as required by the Federal Circuit in Enfish, LLD v. Microsoft Corp., ***provide the rest of the citation***, the misquotation of almost the entire claim connotes the entire technical process is being evaluated as an abstract idea. This is legally and procedurally deficient with respect to the MPEP and clear Federal Circuit precedent.
Since the "quotations" are not accurate for either of the independent claims, and the characterization of the text as a "single limitation" is confusing. Applicant is left to wonder, what is the "concept" being identified? The lack of a clear articulation of an individual concept at Step 2A, Prong 1 constitutes error because it does not provide a clear and specific explanation of the underlying rejection.
Further, the finding that the "single limitation" encompassed in the mass of text provided at page 6 of the Office Action can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper is entirely conclusory. Pages 6 and 7, aside from quoting allegedly relevant CAFC precedent, include no analysis in support of this proposition. This constitutes a separate error in the rejection at Step 2A, Prong 1, as a human, even with pen and paper, could not reasonably perform all of the recited functionality. For example, as amended, claims 1 and 11 require the basis of the determination of the sets of metric values to be the output signals of sensors carried by the particular vehicle. A human is not capable of receiving, processing, or "thinking" high-frequency electronic sensor signals in an "ongoing manner" to dynamically modify technical event thresholds. This process is a technological automation of a high-speed feedback loop that is impossible for the human mind to replicate, thus removing it from the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
Therefore, at Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Alice/Mayo test, the Office Action fails to clearly articulate a concept present in the claims and/or fails to show the claim recites a mental process. At least for one or both of these reasons the rejection under § 101 should be withdrawn.
The Examiner’s Response
The Examiner has carefully considered applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. While the Examiner in the rejection at STEP 2A (PRONG 1) wrote “the limitation”, it was clearly meant to represent the multiple limitations reproduced from claims 1 and 11. The only elements missing in the reproduction were “by the one or more hardware processors”, however, these elements were evaluated under STEP 2A (PRONG 2).
Further, Applicant asserts that “a human, even with pen and paper, could not reasonably perform all of the recited functionality. For example, as amended, claims 1 and 11 require the basis of the determination of the sets of metric values to be the output signals of sensors carried by the particular vehicle. A human is not capable of receiving, processing, or "thinking" high-frequency electronic sensor signals in an "ongoing manner" to dynamically modify technical event thresholds. This process is a technological automation of a high-speed feedback loop that is impossible for the human mind to replicate, thus removing it from the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner submits that these limitations “determining sets of metric values for sets of driver performance metrics pertaining to the first vehicle operator …”, “performing one or more comparisons between the sets of metric values and the one or more driver-specific performance expectations for the amounts of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator during the first trip …”, and “making a determination whether to effectuate an action based on the one or more comparisons …”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can reasonably be performed by a human mentally or with aid of pen and paper.
Although, the claim recites the limitation of “obtain a first scheduled trip duration for a first trip of the first vehicle operator” and “output signals generated”, the additional details do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The obtaining step does not elevate this limitation from insignificant extra-solution data gathering. The “output signals generated” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere pre- or post-solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment.
Furthermore, regarding the use of the one or more hardware processors to perform the aforementioned steps, the Examiner submits that these limitations are mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by merely using a computer to perform the process (MPEP §2106.05). In particular, the one or more hardware processors is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor for performing a generic computer function of generating information, deriving information, performing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Moreover, the “a set of sensors” are claimed generically and operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Therefore, the rejection of such claims under 35 USC § 101 rejection is maintained herein.
The Examiner notes that the rejection has been modified reflecting the amendments most recently submitted by applicant, and for purposes of clarity, the Examiner has reformatted Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 below.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. As to amended claim 1, Applicant argues, broadly, that “the proposed combination of Leong and Palmer fails to teach or suggest determining metric values for a driver on an intra-trip basis, as is recited in the independent claims. … Even the language copied from Leong to the Office Action describes the determination of "risk variables" for the whole of a given trip, and not in a continuous and ongoing manner for different amounts of time spent driving in the same trip, as is required by the claim features reproduced above. The cited portions of Palmer do not address these deficiencies of Leong. As such, the proposed combination of Leong and Palmer does not teach or suggest the claim features reproduced above.” Accordingly, Applicant argues that Leong is silent as to the following claim limitations:
“...during the first trip, continuously determine in an ongoing manner, by the one or more hardware processors based on output signals generated by a set of sensors carried by the first particular vehicle, sets of metric values for sets of driver performance metrics pertaining to the first vehicle operator, wherein individual sets of metric values for sets of driver performance metrics correspond with amounts of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator during the first trip...”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Leong renders obvious the claim limitations at issue. Leong explicitly discloses that Driver A 202 may make a first trip from location A to location B at a first time point (in a continuous and ongoing manner), and one or more risk variables during the first trip may be measured. Data relating to the one or more risk variables, for example as indicated in block 206 may be received during the first trip and recorded (see at least FIG. 2 and paragraphs 66-70). Therefore, the Examiner respectfully submits that the mapping of Leong to Applicant’s claimed invention is appropriate. Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 103 are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 6, “output signals” should read “the output signals”.
Claim 3, line 6, “set of sensors” should read “the set of sensors”.
Claim 13, line 6, “output signals” should read “the output signals”.
Claim 13, line 6, “set of sensors” should read “the set of sensors”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 and 19 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.
As to claim 9, the limitation “the individual vehicle types” at line 3 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “individual vehicle types”.
As to claim 19, the limitation “the individual vehicle types” at line 3 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “individual vehicle types”.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a machine which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
1. A system configured for determining and using one or more driver-specific performance expectations for a first vehicle operator operating a first particular vehicle, the system comprising:
one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
obtain, by the one or more hardware processors, a first scheduled trip duration for a first trip of the first vehicle operator;
during the first trip, continuously determine in an ongoing manner, by the one or more hardware processors based on output signals generated by a set of sensors carried by the first particular vehicle, sets of metric values for sets of driver performance metrics pertaining to the first vehicle operator, wherein individual sets of metric values for sets of driver performance metrics correspond with amounts of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator during the first trip, wherein the sets of metric values for the sets of driver performance metrics includes a first set of metric values for a first set of driver performance metrics, wherein the first set of metric values is associated with a first amount of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator during the first trip;
during the first trip, continuously perform in an ongoing manner, by the one or more hardware processors, one or more comparisons between the sets of metric values and the one or more driver-specific performance expectations for the amounts of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator during the first trip, such that the first set of metric values is compared to the one or more driver-specific performance expectations for the first amount of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator, wherein the one or more driver-specific performance expectations are specific to the first vehicle operator and based on driving performance by the first vehicle operator during previous trips; and
during the first trip, make a determination, by the one or more hardware processors, whether to effectuate an action based on the one or more comparisons, wherein the action is modifying one or more vehicle event thresholds for detecting vehicle events and/or notifying the first vehicle operator and/or a stakeholder of a fleet of vehicles that includes the first particular vehicle.
The limitation(s) highlighted in claim 1 above is/are a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practicably performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper and, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitation(s) of claim 1 highlighted above merely consist of determining and using one or more driver-specific performance expectations; determining sets of metric values for sets of driver performance metrics pertaining to the first vehicle operator; performing one or more comparisons between the sets of metric values and the one or more driver-specific performance expectations for the amounts of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator during the first trip, such that the first set of metric values is compared to the one or more driver-specific performance expectations for the first amount of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator; and making a determination whether to effectuate an action based on the one or more comparisons, wherein the action is modifying one or more vehicle event thresholds for detecting vehicle events and/or notifying the first vehicle operator and/or a stakeholder of a fleet of vehicles that includes the first particular vehicle. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at (observing) the data obtained and determines one or more driver-specific performance expectations; determines sets of metric values for sets of driver performance metrics; compares between the sets of metric values and one or more driver-specific performance expectations; and makes a determination whether to effectuate an action based on the one or more comparisons. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, the claim encompasses a user (person) simply continuously determining in an ongoing manner sets of metric values for sets of driver performance metrics pertaining to the first vehicle operator, wherein individual sets of metric values for sets of driver performance metrics correspond with amounts of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator during the first trip, wherein the sets of metric values for the sets of driver performance metrics includes a first set of metric values for a first set of driver performance metrics, wherein the first set of metric values is associated with a first amount of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator during the first trip; continuously performing in an ongoing manner one or more comparisons between the sets of metric values and the one or more driver-specific performance expectations for the amounts of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator during the first trip, such that the first set of metric values is compared to the one or more driver-specific performance expectations for the first amount of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator, wherein the one or more driver-specific performance expectations are specific to the first vehicle operator and based on driving performance by the first vehicle operator during previous trips; and making a determination whether to effectuate an action based on the one or more comparisons, wherein the action is modifying one or more vehicle event thresholds for detecting vehicle events and/or notifying the first vehicle operator and/or a stakeholder of a fleet of vehicles that includes the first particular vehicle in his/her mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a system, a set of sensors, or one or more hardware processors does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
1. A system configured for determining and using one or more driver-specific performance expectations for a first vehicle operator operating a first particular vehicle, the system comprising:
one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
obtain, by the one or more hardware processors, a first scheduled trip duration for a first trip of the first vehicle operator;
during the first trip, continuously determine in an ongoing manner, by the one or more hardware processors based on output signals generated by a set of sensors carried by the first particular vehicle, sets of metric values for sets of driver performance metrics pertaining to the first vehicle operator, wherein individual sets of metric values for sets of driver performance metrics correspond with amounts of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator during the first trip, wherein the sets of metric values for the sets of driver performance metrics includes a first set of metric values for a first set of driver performance metrics, wherein the first set of metric values is associated with a first amount of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator during the first trip;
during the first trip, continuously perform in an ongoing manner, by the one or more hardware processors, one or more comparisons between the sets of metric values and the one or more driver-specific performance expectations for the amounts of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator during the first trip, such that the first set of metric values is compared to the one or more driver-specific performance expectations for the first amount of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator, wherein the one or more driver-specific performance expectations are specific to the first vehicle operator and based on driving performance by the first vehicle operator during previous trips; and
during the first trip, make a determination, by the one or more hardware processors, whether to effectuate an action based on the one or more comparisons, wherein the action is modifying one or more vehicle event thresholds for detecting vehicle events and/or notifying the first vehicle operator and/or a stakeholder of a fleet of vehicles that includes the first particular vehicle.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites additional elements of “obtain a first scheduled trip duration for a first trip of the first vehicle operator”, “output signals generated”, a system, a set of sensors, and one or more hardware processors. The obtaining step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving/gathering data) and amount to no more than data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity. The “output signals generated” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere pre- or post-solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “a set of sensors” are claimed generically and operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “a system” and “one or more hardware processors”, the Examiner submits the limitations are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “a system” and “one or more hardware processors” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The component(s) merely automate(s) the aforementioned step(s) and thus do/does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The claim does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the system” and “the one or more hardware processors” amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of “the set of sensors” are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Analysis of claim 11:
Claim 11 is commensurate in scope to claim 1, with claim 1 being drawn to a system, claim 11 being drawn to a method. Thus, since claim 11 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 11 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner additionally notes claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and claims 12-20 depend from claim 11.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Each of the claimed limitations either expand upon or add either 1) new mental process, 2) a new additional element, 3) previously presented mental process, and/or 4) a previously presented additional element.
As such, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEONG et al., US 2023/0331239 A1, hereinafter referred to as LEONG, in view of Palmer et al., US 2020/0005662 A1, hereinafter referred to as Palmer, respectively.
As to claim 1, LEONG teaches a system configured for determining and using one or more driver-specific performance expectations for a first vehicle operator operating a first particular vehicle, the system comprising:
one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions to (see at least paragraph 12 regarding the apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, LEONG):
obtain, by the one or more hardware processors, a first scheduled trip duration for a first trip of the first vehicle operator (see at least FIG. 2 and paragraphs 68-70 regarding Driver A 202 may make a first trip from location A to location B at a first time point, and one or more risk variables during the first trip may be measured. See also at least paragraphs 82-83 regarding in step 502, a risk or performance prediction model f and a driver (user) z may be also be input or retrieved. Optionally, in step 504, parameters such as an initial value for duration (time period) d and a target improvement C.sub.target to be achieved by the driver z may also be input or retrieved. In step 506, data relating to risk variables of all drivers whose driving performance have been evaluated may be retrieved from a database, LEONG);
during the first trip, continuously determine in an ongoing manner, by the one or more hardware processors based on output signals generated by a set of sensors carried by the first particular vehicle, sets of metric values for sets of driver performance metrics pertaining to the first vehicle operator, wherein individual sets of metric values for sets of driver performance metrics correspond with amounts of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator during the first trip, wherein the sets of metric values for the sets of driver performance metrics includes a first set of metric values for a first set of driver performance metrics, wherein the first set of metric values is associated with a first amount of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator during the first trip (see at least FIGS. 1-2 and paragraphs 45-51 and 66-70 regarding sensors 142A to 142N. The sensor 142 is associated with a user associated with the requestor device 102. More details of how the sensor may be utilised will be provided below. In an embodiment, the sensor is one that can obtain vehicle telematics. In another example, the sensor is one that is configured to collect data of other risk variables. Driver A 202 may make a first trip from location A to location B at a first time point, and one or more risk variables during the first trip may be measured. Data relating to the one or more risk variables, for example as indicated in block 206 may be received during the first trip and recorded. The Driver A 202 may subsequently make a second trip from location B to location C at a second time point, and one or more risk variables during the second trip may be measured. Data relating to the one or more risk variables at the second time point, for example as indicated in block 207, may be received during the first trip and recorded. See also at least paragraphs 82-83);
during the first trip, continuously perform in an ongoing manner, by the one or more hardware processors, one or more comparisons between the sets of metric values and the one or more driver-specific performance expectations for the amounts of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator during the first trip, such that the first set of metric values is compared to the one or more driver-specific performance expectations for the first amount of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator, wherein the one or more driver-specific performance expectations are specific to the first vehicle operator and based on driving performance by the first vehicle operator during previous trips (see at least paragraphs 37-38 regarding a risk variable is a parameter that is used to evaluate a driver’s performance in safe driving at a time point or over a time period. Examples of a risk variable are count of speeding, count of swaying, count of sharp cornering, count of harsh acceleration, count of harsh braking per kilometre driven, distance per day driven and duration per day driven, count of driving complaints, count of customer service complaints and count of fault accidents. In an embodiment, when a driver travels in a journey from destination A to destination B at current time point, data relating to a risk variable(s) may be measured and used to determine a driver’s performance in safe driving in entire or part of the journey at the current time point, and determine if the driver’s performance in safe driving improves by comparing against historical data measured in one or more driver’s previous journeys or at one or more previous time points. See also at least FIG. 2 and paragraphs 68-70 regarding when data is received at a time point, for example as shown in block 208, historical data recorded earlier, for example recorded since the first time point as shown in block 206, the second time as shown in block 207, or other time point prior to the first time point (not shown), are retrieved to assess and determine if Driver A’s performance in safe driving has improved. Based on the determination result, for example that the Driver A’s performance has improved over the time period since the retrieved historical data was first received, an optimal period, as indicated in block 204, to evaluate the Driver A’s performance in safe driving is determined. See also at least paragraphs 82-83).
LEONG does not explicitly teach during the first trip, making a determination, by the one or more hardware processors, whether to effectuate an action based on the one or more comparisons, wherein the action is modifying one or more vehicle event thresholds for detecting vehicle events and/or notifying the first vehicle operator and/or a stakeholder of a fleet of vehicles that includes the first particular vehicle.
However, such matter is taught by Palmer (see at least paragraphs 99-103 regarding detection may be accomplished and/or performed at the vehicle. In some implementations, a value of a current operating condition that effectuates detection of a vehicle event and/or determination of an event type may vary as a function of the contextual information. For example, a speed of 50 mph (in a particular geographical location) may not effectuate detection of a vehicle event and/or determination of an event type when the road surface is dry and/or when traffic is light, but the same speed in the same geographical location may effectuate detection of a vehicle event and/or determination of an event type responsive to contextual information and/or other information indicating that the road surface is wet and/or icy (and/or may be wet and/or icy), or responsive to contextual information (and/or other information) that traffic is heavy (and/or may be heavy). In this example, the contextual information (and/or other information) may have an effect of the detection of vehicle events and/or the determination of event types. In some implementations, contextual information (and/or other information) may modify the sensitivity of the process and/or mechanism by which vehicle events are detected and/or event types are determined. In some implementations, detection of vehicle events and/or determination of event types may be based on one or more comparisons of the values of current operating conditions with threshold values. In some implementations, a particular threshold value may vary as a function of contextual information. In some implementations, a particular threshold value may vary as a function of other information, e.g. as determined based on sensor output).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Palmer which teaches making a determination, by the one or more hardware processors, whether to effectuate an action based on the one or more comparisons, wherein the action is modifying one or more vehicle event thresholds for detecting vehicle events and/or notifying the first vehicle operator and/or a stakeholder of a fleet of vehicles that includes the first particular vehicle with the system of LEONG as both systems are directed to a system and method for evaluating a driver’s performance based on the comparative analysis of driving metrics, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of making a determination, by the one or more hardware processors, whether to effectuate an action based on the one or more comparisons, wherein the action is modifying one or more vehicle event thresholds for detecting vehicle events and/or notifying the first vehicle operator and/or a stakeholder of a fleet of vehicles that includes the first particular vehicle and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of LEONG.
As to claim 2, LEONG does not explicitly teach during the first trip, effectuating the action, by the one or more hardware processors, based on the determination.
However, such matter is taught by Palmer (see at least paragraphs 99-103 regarding detection of vehicle events may further be based one or more types of contextual information. In some implementations, detection may be accomplished and/or performed at the vehicle. In some implementations, a value of a current operating condition that effectuates detection of a vehicle event and/or determination of an event type may vary as a function of the contextual information. … In some implementations, contextual information (and/or other information) may modify the sensitivity of the process and/or mechanism by which vehicle events are detected and/or event types are determined. In some implementations, detection of vehicle events and/or determination of event types may be based on one or more comparisons of the values of current operating conditions with threshold values. In some implementations, a particular threshold value may vary as a function of contextual information. In some implementations, a particular threshold value may vary as a function of other information, e.g. as determined based on sensor output).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Palmer which teaches effectuating the action, by the one or more hardware processors, based on the determination with the system of LEONG as both systems are directed to a system and method for evaluating a driver’s performance based on the comparative analysis of driving metrics, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of effectuating the action, by the one or more hardware processors, based on the determination and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of LEONG.
As to claim 3, LEONG teaches wherein the previous trips include a set of trips, wherein the driving performance is based on performance information for the previous trips (see at least paragraph 37 regarding historical data measured in one or more driver’s previous journeys or at one or more previous time points. See also at least FIG. 2 and paragraphs 68-70, LEONG), wherein the set of trips includes a first particular trip of the first particular vehicle, wherein the performance information for the first particular trip is based at least in part on a first set of vehicle events that have been detected (see at least FIG. 2 and paragraphs 68-70 regarding Driver A 202 may make a first trip from location A to location B at a first time point, and one or more risk variables during the first trip may be measured. Data relating to the one or more risk variables, for example as indicated in block 206 may be received during the first trip and recorded. The Driver A 202 may subsequently make a second trip from location B to location C at a second time point, and one or more risk variables during the second trip may be measured. Data relating to the one or more risk variables at the second time point, for example as indicated in block 207, may be received during the first trip and recorded. When data is received at a time point, for example as shown in block 208, historical data recorded earlier, for example recorded since the first time point as shown in block 206, the second time as shown in block 207, or other time point prior to the first time point (not shown), are retrieved to assess and determine if Driver A’s performance in safe driving has improved, LEONG), wherein detection of the first set of vehicle events is based on output signals generated by a set of sensors that are carried by the first particular vehicle (see at least paragraphs 66-70 regarding the sensor 142 is associated with a user associated with the requestor device 102. More details of how the sensor may be utilised will be provided below. In an embodiment, the sensor is one that can obtain vehicle telematics. In another example, the sensor is one that is configured to collect data of other risk variables, LEONG).
As to claim 10, LEONG teaches wherein the driving performance by the first vehicle operator during the previous trips varies as a function of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator during a given trip (see at least paragraphs 36-37 regarding a risk variable is a parameter that is used to evaluate a driver’s performance in safe driving at a time point or over a time period. Examples of a risk variable are count of speeding, count of swaying, count of sharp cornering, count of harsh acceleration, count of harsh braking per kilometre driven, distance per day driven and duration per day driven, count of driving complaints, count of customer service complaints and count of fault accidents, LEONG).
As to claim 11, Examiner notes claim 11 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 12, Examiner notes claim 12 recites similar limitations to claim 2 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 13, Examiner notes claim 13 recites similar limitations to claim 3 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 20, Examiner notes claim 20 recites similar limitations to claim 10 and is rejected under the same rational.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEONG et al., US 2023/0331239 A1, hereinafter referred to as LEONG, in view of Palmer et al., US 2020/0005662 A1, hereinafter referred to as Palmer, and further in view of Kuehnle et al., US 2019/0147263 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kuehnle, respectively.
As to claim 4, LEONG, as modified by Palmer, teaches wherein the previous trips include a set of trips, wherein the driving performance is based on performance information for the previous trips, wherein the set of trips includes a second particular trip of the first particular vehicle (see at least FIG. 2 and paragraphs 68-70 regarding Driver A 202 may make a first trip from location A to location B at a first time point, and one or more risk variables during the first trip may be measured. Data relating to the one or more risk variables, for example as indicated in block 206 may be received during the first trip and recorded. The Driver A 202 may subsequently make a second trip from location B to location C at a second time point, and one or more risk variables during the second trip may be measured. Data relating to the one or more risk variables at the second time point, for example as indicated in block 207, may be received during the first trip and recorded. When data is received at a time point, for example as shown in block 208, historical data recorded earlier, for example recorded since the first time point as shown in block 206, the second time as shown in block 207, or other time point prior to the first time point (not shown), are retrieved to assess and determine if Driver A’s performance in safe driving has improved), however, LEONG, as modified by Palmer, does not explicitly teach wherein the performance information for the second particular trip is based at least in part on operator attentiveness of the first vehicle operator; or wherein determination of the operator attentiveness is based on output signals captured by one or more cameras configured to capture image information of the first vehicle operator during the second particular trip.
However, Kuehnle teaches wherein the performance information for the second particular trip is based at least in part on operator attentiveness of the first vehicle operator (see at least paragraphs 183-185 regarding the driver behavior monitoring system of the embodiment monitors the facial normal vector over time and compares the monitored facial normal vector with predetermined statistical properly-directed facial normal vectors. The facial normal vector information is stored local in the memory of the system together with the results of the comparison over time. These data and result may be transmitted to the central fleet management system as may be necessary or desired. Monitoring the driver's road attention in accordance with a combination of a location of the driver's head and a facial normal vector of the driver's head); and wherein determination of the operator attentiveness is based on output signals captured by one or more cameras configured to capture image information of the first vehicle operator during the second particular trip (see at least paragraph 119 regarding the driver facing camera 345 uses wide angle camera views to obtain an image 700 of the cabin of the commercial vehicle. See also at least paragraphs 183-185 regarding monitoring the driver's road attention in accordance with a combination of a location of the driver's head and a facial normal vector of the driver's head. An image of the cabin area of the vehicle is obtained at step 1310).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Kuehnle which teaches wherein the performance information for the second particular trip is based at least in part on operator attentiveness of the first vehicle operator; and wherein determination of the operator attentiveness is based on output signals captured by one or more cameras configured to capture image information of the first vehicle operator during the second particular trip with the system of LEONG, as modified by Palmer, as both systems are directed to a system and method for evaluating a driver’s performance based on the comparative analysis of driving metrics, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of having wherein the performance information for the second particular trip is based at least in part on operator attentiveness of the first vehicle operator; and wherein determination of the operator attentiveness is based on output signals captured by one or more cameras configured to capture image information of the first vehicle operator during the second particular trip and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of LEONG as modified by Palmer.
As to claim 5, LEONG, as modified by Palmer, teaches wherein the previous trips include a set of trips, wherein the driving performance is based on performance information for the previous trips, wherein the set of trips includes a third particular trip of the first particular vehicle that is operated by the first vehicle operator (see at least FIG. 2 and paragraphs 68-70 regarding Driver A 202 may make a first trip from location A to location B at a first time point, and one or more risk variables during the first trip may be measured. Data relating to the one or more risk variables, for example as indicated in block 206 may be received during the first trip and recorded. The Driver A 202 may subsequently make a second trip from location B to location C at a second time point, and one or more risk variables during the second trip may be measured. Data relating to the one or more risk variables at the second time point, for example as indicated in block 207, may be received during the first trip and recorded. When data is received at a time point, for example as shown in block 208, historical data recorded earlier, for example recorded since the first time point as shown in block 206, the second time as shown in block 207, or other time point prior to the first time point (not shown), are retrieved to assess and determine if Driver A’s performance in safe driving has improved), however, LEONG, as modified by Palmer, does not explicitly teach wherein the performance information for the third particular trip is based on a combination of detected vehicle events and determined operator attentiveness of the first vehicle operator.
However, such matter is taught by Kuehnle (see at least paragraphs 223-224 regarding the driver image data collection portion 832′ includes a step 1702 determining a time of the image of the driver, and a step 1704 collecting the image of the driver. In step 1106 the logic of the system determines information relating to the operation of the vehicle such as, for example, vehicle speed data or the like, and the logic also determines the head pose of the driver. The historical driver's head pose data is updated in step 1708 with the newly acquired driver's head pose. A determination is made in step 1710 whether the collected historical data differs from a predetermined desired distribution for a given vehicle state. If the collected historical data does not differ from the predetermined desired distribution for the given vehicle state, no action is taken. However, if the collected historical data does differ from the predetermined desired distribution for the given vehicle state, then the method 1700 generates at step 1730 a head pose warning signal and/or generates head pose warning data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Kuehnle which teaches wherein the performance information for the third particular trip is based on a combination of detected vehicle events and determined operator attentiveness of the first vehicle operator with the system of LEONG, as modified by Palmer, as both systems are directed to a system and method for evaluating a driver’s performance based on the comparative analysis of driving metrics, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of having wherein the performance information for the third particular trip is based on a combination of detected vehicle events and determined operator attentiveness of the first vehicle operator and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of LEONG as modified by Palmer.
As to claim 14, Examiner notes claim 14 recites similar limitations to claim 4 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 15, Examiner notes claim 15 recites similar limitations to claim 5 and is rejected under the same rational.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEONG et al., US 2023/0331239 A1, hereinafter referred to as LEONG, in view of Palmer et al., US 2020/0005662 A1, hereinafter referred to as Palmer, and further in view of Russo et al., US 2023/0132673 A1, hereinafter referred to as Russo, respectively.
As to claim 6, LEONG, as modified by Palmer, teaches wherein a scheduled duration of the given trip exceeds the particular time spent driving by the first vehicle operator (see at least paragraphs 37-38. See also at least paragraphs 82-85, LEONG), however, LEONG, as modified by Palmer, does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more driver-specific performance expectations at a particular time during a given trip ranges between a lower level and a higher level; or wherein the one or more comparisons include a comparison between a particular metric value with the lower level, wherein the particular metric value has been determined for the first vehicle operator, and wherein the particular metric value is associated with a future moment during the given trip.
However, Russo teaches wherein the one or more driver-specific performance expectations at a particular time during a given trip ranges between a lower level and a higher level (see at least paragraphs 56-65 regarding he driver performance metric 310b for braking 310a may be a score of 55 which is less than the minimum score for the star level 302a and the shield level 302a. As a result, the indication of the driver performance metric 310b for braking 310a is placed outside of the corresponding ranges 302c, 304c for the star and the shield levels. The driver performance metric 312b for speeding 312a may be a score of 72 which is within the range of driver performance metrics 302c for the star level. Accordingly, the indication of the driver performance metric 312b for speeding is placed within the range of driver performance metrics 302c for the star level, and near the beginning of the range. The driver performance metric 314b for acceleration 312a may be a score of 68 which is less than the minimum score for the star level 302a and the shield level 302a. As a result, the indication of the driver performance metric 314b for speeding 314a is placed outside of the corresponding ranges 302c, 304c for the star and the shield levels. In yet another example, the driver performance metric 316b for maneuvers 316a may be a score of 94 which is within the range of driver performance metrics 304c for the shield level. Accordingly, the indication of the driver performance metric 316b for maneuvering is placed within the range of driver performance metrics 304c for the shield level, and toward the middle of the range); and wherein the one or more comparisons include a comparison between a particular metric value with the lower level, wherein the particular metric value has been determined for the first vehicle operator, and wherein the particular metric value is associated with a future moment during the given trip (see at least paragraphs 27, 41-44 regarding the driver performance module 56 may obtain vehicle data for a user, analyze the vehicle data to identify driver performance metrics for several telemetry factors, and combine the driver performance metrics to determine amounts remaining until the user reaches various levels of safe driving behavior and qualifies for corresponding benefits. Identifying braking, speeding, acceleration, or maneuvering events by comparing vehicle data to a braking (e.g., 0.4 G), speeding (e.g., 80 miles per hour), acceleration (e.g., 0.3 G), or maneuvering threshold (e.g., 0.2 G). The overall scores for each level of safe driving behavior may then be used to determine the amount remaining until the user reaches the level. For example, as the overall score for a particular level of safe driving behavior increases, the amount remaining until the user reaches the particular level decreases. See also at least paragraphs 56-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Russo which teaches wherein the one or more driver-specific performance expectations at a particular time during a given trip ranges between a lower level and a higher level; and wherein the one or more comparisons include a comparison between a particular metric value with the lower level, wherein the particular metric value has been determined for the first vehicle operator, and wherein the particular metric value is associated with a future moment during the given trip with the system of LEONG, as modified by Palmer, as both systems are directed to a system and method for evaluating a driver’s performance based on the comparative analysis of driving metrics, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of having wherein the one or more driver-specific performance expectations at a particular time during a given trip ranges between a lower level and a higher level; and wherein the one or more comparisons include a comparison between a particular metric value with the lower level, wherein the particular metric value has been determined for the first vehicle operator, and wherein the particular metric value is associated with a future moment during the given trip and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of LEONG as modified by Palmer.
As to claim 7, LEONG does not explicitly teach wherein the action is effectuated responsive to at least one of: (ⅰ) the particular metric value falling below the lower level, and (ⅱ) the particular metric value falling below a threshold performance level.
However, such matter is taught by Palmer (see at least paragraphs 99-104 regarding detection of vehicle events may further be based one or more types of contextual information. In some implementations, detection may be accomplished and/or performed at the vehicle. In some implementations, a value of a current operating condition that effectuates detection of a vehicle event and/or determination of an event type may vary as a function of the contextual information. For example, a speed of 50 mph (in a particular geographical location) may not effectuate detection of a vehicle event and/or determination of an event type when the road surface is dry and/or when traffic is light, but the same speed in the same geographical location may effectuate detection of a vehicle event and/or determination of an event type responsive to contextual information and/or other information indicating that the road surface is wet and/or icy (and/or may be wet and/or icy), or responsive to contextual information (and/or other information) that traffic is heavy (and/or may be heavy). In this example, the contextual information (and/or other information) may have an effect of the detection of vehicle events and/or the determination of event types. In some implementations, contextual information (and/or other information) may modify the sensitivity of the process and/or mechanism by which vehicle events are detected and/or event types are determined. In some implementations, detection of vehicle events and/or determination of event types may be based on one or more comparisons of the values of current operating conditions with threshold values. In some implementations, a particular threshold value may vary as a function of contextual information. In some implementations, a particular threshold value may vary as a function of other information, e.g. as determined based on sensor output).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Palmer which teaches wherein the action is effectuated responsive to at least one of: (ⅰ) the particular metric value falling below the lower level, and (ⅱ) the particular metric value falling below a threshold performance level with the system of LEONG as both systems are directed to a system and method for evaluating a driver’s performance based on the comparative analysis of driving metrics, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of having wherein the action is effectuated responsive to at least one of: (ⅰ) the particular metric value falling below the lower level, and (ⅱ) the particular metric value falling below a threshold performance level and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of LEONG.
As to claim 16, Examiner notes claim 16 recites similar limitations to claim 6 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 17, Examiner notes claim 17 recites similar limitations to claim 7 and is rejected under the same rational.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEONG et al., US 2023/0331239 A1, hereinafter referred to as LEONG, in view of Palmer et al., US 2020/0005662 A1, hereinafter referred to as Palmer, and further in view of Rani et al., US 2017/0323244 A1, hereinafter referred to as Rani, respectively.
As to claim 8, LEONG, as modified by Palmer, does not explicitly teach extrapolating the first set of metric values through the first scheduled trip duration and determining whether the extrapolated first set of metric values falls below one or more threshold performance levels.
However, such matter is taught by Rani (see at least paragraphs 37-49 regarding the telematics module 200 generates driver activity 202, which comprises speeding data 204, route (which includes geographic location) data 206, rapid accelerations 208, hard braking data 210, cornering data 211, fuel use data 212, mobile device data 213 (which includes, for example, cell-phone usage while driving) along with general drive data 215 (e.g., driving distance, drive time, time periods, number and duration of stops, arrival and departure times at jobs, and the like). The evaluation engine 302 analyzes the driver activity 202 to generate a plurality of driver score cards 112. The cards 112 are generated at will of the fleet manager 102 in order to evaluate driver performance. The Driver score is a composite score that the evaluation engine 302 determines that allows driver behavior to be described using a single measure so the drivers may be compared to each other and for the same driver to be compared across time. See also at least paragraph 93 regarding the fuel economy score takes into account the expected fuel economy of the vehicle driven at a particular average trip speed and the actual fuel economy of a trip and determining the expected fuel economy for that vehicle make-model-year for a particular region and season. The actual fuel economy is compared to the expected fuel economy and based on the driving behavior during the trip (speeding, braking and acceleration events), a fuel economy score is arrived at by the evaluation engine 302).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Rani which teaches extrapolating the first set of metric values through the first scheduled trip duration and determining whether the extrapolated first set of metric values falls below one or more threshold performance levels with the system of LEONG, as modified by Palmer, as both systems are directed to a system and method for evaluating a driver’s performance based on the comparative analysis of driving metrics, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of extrapolating the first set of metric values through the first scheduled trip duration and determining whether the extrapolated first set of metric values falls below one or more threshold performance levels and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of LEONG as modified by Palmer.
As to claim 18, Examiner notes claim 18 recites similar limitations to claim 8 and is rejected under the same rational.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEONG et al., US 2023/0331239 A1, hereinafter referred to as LEONG, in view of Palmer et al., US 2020/0005662 A1, hereinafter referred to as Palmer, and further in view of Vik et al., US 2009/0198422 A1, hereinafter referred to as Vik, respectively.
As to claim 9, LEONG, as modified by Palmer, does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more comparisons are limited to the individual vehicle types that are similar to a first vehicle type of the first particular vehicle that has been operated by the first vehicle operator.
However, such matter is taught by Vik (see at least paragraphs 17, 33-36, and 41-44 regarding controller 28 may compare the productivity or efficiency of each machine within a group of commonly tasked and similar machines according to who is operating those machines within a given time period (i.e., within a given shift). Controller 28 may trend productivity according to a type of machine such as a digging machine 12 or a loading machine 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to use the system of Vik which teaches wherein the one or more comparisons are limited to the individual vehicle types that are similar to a first vehicle type of the first particular vehicle that has been operated by the first vehicle operator with the system of LEONG, as modified by Palmer, as both systems are directed to a system and method for evaluating driver performance, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of having wherein the one or more comparisons are limited to the individual vehicle types that are similar to a first vehicle type of the first particular vehicle that has been operated by the first vehicle operator and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of LEONG as modified by Palmer.
As to claim 19, Examiner notes claim 19 recites similar limitations to claim 9 and is rejected under the same rational.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WHEATLEY et al. (US 20080042813 A1) regarding a system for providing improved in-vehicle warnings.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 KYLE S. PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-3151. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Anne M ANTONUCCI can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/K.S.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights