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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to application 18/903,433 entitled "SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND DEVICES FOR VEHICLE MONITORING AND CONTROL" originally filed on October 1, 2024, with claims 1 to 20 pending.
Specification Objections
Although Applicants are allowed to serve as his or her own lexicographer, the Applicants’ usage of the term “built sheet” holds no meaning in the art and the Specification provides no definition. Examiner presumes the Applicants intended to write “build sheet” which is a factory-produced document detailing every component, option, and code used to assemble a specific manufactured-good.
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.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method/process, machine/apparatus, (article of) manufacture, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“A system comprising: a … monitoring and control system obtaining a plurality of driving-related inputs of data collected from one or more data sources, the one or more data sources including a component of an …
….determining one or more … operation behavior values based on the plurality of driving-related inputs, the one or more … operation behavior values corresponding to one or more risk-related events identified from the plurality of driving-related inputs; and
one or more …models generating an ADAS-based target output based on the one or more … operation behavior values and the plurality of driving-related inputs, wherein an indication of the ADAS-based target output is generated for presentation.”
The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “generating an ADAS-based target output based on the one or more vehicle operation behavior values and the plurality of driving-related inputs, wherein an indication of the ADAS-based target output is generated for presentation” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions.
Particularly, the Specification clarifies [0007] “the ADAS-based target output includes at least one of an alert message sent to one or more mobile devices, an update to a risk map presented at the display, a request for assistance sent to an emergency response device, a tow request sent to a device associated with a towing service, an instruction to perform an autonomous car action, or a pricing variable for an insurance pricing model, another device remote or separate from the system, and/or combinations thereof.”
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Furthermore, the limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. Specific instances include instructing to “obtaining a plurality of driving-related inputs of data” and “determining one or more vehicle operation behavior values” recite mental processes. “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… The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation… Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, ‘[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’”, see MPEP 2106 – III. MENTAL PROCESSES. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a one that a person may perform by thinking then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[a controller having at least one processor, the controller]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[advanced driving assistance system (ADAS) operating in a vehicle]:
merely applying automotive technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[deep-learning]:
merely applying machine learning technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0006] the one or more data sources further includes a mobile device
[0024] driving-related inputs....may be stored at one or more databases 124 as computer-readable instructions executable by one or more processors, such as one or more servers
[0047] The computer system 504 may be a computing system capable of executing a computer program product to execute a computer process....including one or more hardware processors 602, one or more data storage devices 604, one or more memory devices...Additionally, other elements that will be recognized by those skilled in the art may be included in the computing system
[0049] The computer system 504 may be a single computer, a distributed computer, or any other type of computer...the computer system 504 include personal computers, terminals, workstations, mobile phones, tablets, laptops, personal computers, wearable devices, multimedia consoles, gaming consoles, set top boxes, and the like.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 2:
“mobile device”, “server”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“ADAS”, “vehicle”: merely applying automotive technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 3:
“adaptive cruise control system, a forward collision warning alert system, an anti-lock brake system, an automatic emergency braking system, a lane keeping assist system, a lane departure warning alert system, a vehicle stability control system, a traction control system, or a wiper system”, “ADAS”, “vehicle”: merely applying automotive technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 4:
“ADAS”, “vehicle”: merely applying automotive technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 5:
“ADAS”: merely applying automotive technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“traction control”, “automatic brake”: merely applying automotive technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 6:
“ADAS”: merely applying automotive technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 7:
“ADAS”: merely applying automotive technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“emergency response device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 8:
“mobile device having a wireless network connection”, “mobile device including a touchscreen display”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 9:
“server”, “wireless connection”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“vehicle”: merely applying automotive technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 10:
“server”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“ADAS”, “vehicle”: merely applying automotive technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 (Step 2A-Prong 2) earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 11 recites:
“A …comprising: receiving a plurality of driving-related inputs including …usage data collected from one or more data sources, the one or more data sources including a component of an … operating…;
determining one or more …operation behavior values based on the plurality of driving-related inputs, the one or more … operation behavior values corresponding to one or more risk-related events identified from the plurality of driving-related inputs;
generating an ADAS-based target output by using the one or more … operation behavior values and at least one of the plurality of driving-related inputs to detect the one or more risk-related events; and
sending, …a communication based on the ADAS-based target output.”
The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “generating an ADAS-based target output based on the one or more vehicle operation behavior values and the plurality of driving-related inputs, wherein an indication of the ADAS-based target output is generated for presentation” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions.
Particularly, the Specification clarifies [0007] “the ADAS-based target output includes at least one of an alert message sent to one or more mobile devices, an update to a risk map presented at the display, a request for assistance sent to an emergency response device, a tow request sent to a device associated with a towing service, an instruction to perform an autonomous car action, or a pricing variable for an insurance pricing model, another device remote or separate from the system, and/or combinations thereof.”
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Furthermore, the limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. Specific instances include instructing to “determining one or more vehicle operation behavior values” recite mental processes. “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… The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation… Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, ‘[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’”, see MPEP 2106 – III. MENTAL PROCESSES. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a one that a person may perform by thinking then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[computer-readable non-transitory memory device storing instructions that, when executed by a one or more processors, performs operations] [to another device separate from the one or more processors]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[advanced driving assistance system (ADAS)] [in a vehicle][vehicle]:
merely applying automotive technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0006] the one or more data sources further includes a mobile device
[0024] driving-related inputs....may be stored at one or more databases 124 as computer-readable instructions executable by one or more processors, such as one or more servers
[0047] The computer system 504 may be a computing system capable of executing a computer program product to execute a computer process....including one or more hardware processors 602, one or more data storage devices 604, one or more memory devices...Additionally, other elements that will be recognized by those skilled in the art may be included in the computing system
[0049] The computer system 504 may be a single computer, a distributed computer, or any other type of computer...the computer system 504 include personal computers, terminals, workstations, mobile phones, tablets, laptops, personal computers, wearable devices, multimedia consoles, gaming consoles, set top boxes, and the like.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 12:
“computer-readable non-transitory memory device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“ADAS”: merely applying automotive technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 13:
“computer-readable non-transitory memory device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 14:
“computer-readable non-transitory memory device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“vehicle”: merely applying automotive technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 15:
“computer-readable non-transitory memory device”, “a mobile device and an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) server”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“ADAS”: merely applying automotive technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 (Step 2A-Prong 2) earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 16 recites:
“A method of … monitoring and control, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of driving-related inputs including …usage data collected from one or more data sources, the one or more data sources including a component of an … operating…;
determining one or more … operation behavior values based on the plurality of driving-related inputs, the one or more … operation behavior values corresponding to one or more risk-related events identified from the plurality of driving-related inputs;
generating an ADAS-based target output by using the one or more … operation behavior values and at least one of the plurality of driving-related inputs indicating the one or more risk-related events; and
causing …to receive a communication based on the ADAS-based target output.”
The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “generating an ADAS-based target output based on the one or more vehicle operation behavior values and the plurality of driving-related inputs, wherein an indication of the ADAS-based target output is generated for presentation” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions.
Particularly, the Specification clarifies [0007] “the ADAS-based target output includes at least one of an alert message sent to one or more mobile devices, an update to a risk map presented at the display, a request for assistance sent to an emergency response device, a tow request sent to a device associated with a towing service, an instruction to perform an autonomous car action, or a pricing variable for an insurance pricing model, another device remote or separate from the system, and/or combinations thereof.”
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Furthermore, the limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. Specific instances include instructing to “determining one or more … operation behavior values” and “generating an … output” recite mental processes. “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… The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation… Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, ‘[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’”, see MPEP 2106 – III. MENTAL PROCESSES. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a one that a person may perform by thinking then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[another device]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[advanced driving assistance system (ADAS)] [vehicle][in a vehicle]:
merely applying automotive technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0006] the one or more data sources further includes a mobile device
[0024] driving-related inputs....may be stored at one or more databases 124 as computer-readable instructions executable by one or more processors, such as one or more servers
[0047] The computer system 504 may be a computing system capable of executing a computer program product to execute a computer process....including one or more hardware processors 602, one or more data storage devices 604, one or more memory devices...Additionally, other elements that will be recognized by those skilled in the art may be included in the computing system
[0049] The computer system 504 may be a single computer, a distributed computer, or any other type of computer...the computer system 504 include personal computers, terminals, workstations, mobile phones, tablets, laptops, personal computers, wearable devices, multimedia consoles, gaming consoles, set top boxes, and the like.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 17:
“ADAS”: merely applying automotive technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 18:
“ADAS”: merely applying automotive technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 19:
“training a deep-learning model”: merely applying machine learning technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 20:
“vehicle”: merely applying automotive technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 (Step 2A-Prong 2) earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ramaci ("VEHICLE TELEMATIC ASSISTIVE APPARATUS AND SYSTEM", WIPO Publication Number: WO 2019213177 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Ramaci teaches,
A system comprising: a vehicle monitoring and control system obtaining a plurality of driving-related inputs of data collected from one or more data sources, the one or more data sources including a component of an advanced driving assistance system (ADAS) operating in a vehicle;
(Ramaci [page 3, lines 7-9] Vehicle telematics is the integration of wireless communications, monitoring systems, and location devices to provide real-time spatial and performance data of a vehicle
Ramaci [page 10, lines 31-34] The application collects, aggregates, and processes telematics data, single or compound variables, to generate analytical and or predictive information including but not limited to a pre-set, threshold, captured, or monitored vehicle component or parts parameters.
Ramaci [page 18, lines 29-30] vehicle sensors collection and or combined with ADAS (advanced driver assistance systems) data for accurate risk analysis)
a controller having at least one processor, the controller determining one or more vehicle operation behavior values based on the plurality of driving-related inputs, the one or more vehicle operation behavior values corresponding to one or more risk-related events identified from the plurality of driving-related inputs; and
(Ramaci [page 23, lines 13-14] device may contain one or more microprocessor, microcontroller
Ramaci [page 10, lines 21-22] The ecosystem enables operational and or feedback communication for a driver and one or more network participants (e.g., fleet manager, dispatcher, parents etc.).
Ramaci [page 33, lines 22-34 to page 34, 1ine 1] Event detection component 501 receives from the vehicle telematics device... various operational data inputs including IMU data 503, GPS data 504, and driver data 505. The identified event 506 is combined with environmental contextual data… Telematics data analytics generating module comprises an event detection component 601 and a fault hazard function estimation component
Ramaci [page 35, line 5] The identified event 606)
one or more deep-learning models generating an ADAS-based target output based on the one or more vehicle operation behavior values and the plurality of driving-related inputs, wherein an indication of the ADAS-based target output is generated for presentation.
(Ramaci [page 36, line 2] machine learning algorithms are used for analyses and predictions
Ramaci [page 13, lines 23-25] the AI digital assistant alerts drivers immediately to one or more measures of vehicle performance or a status of vehicle components
Ramaci [page 13, lines 1-2] wherein the resulting prediction is communicated to a driver, preferably through an audio-visual output via the AI digital assistant
Ramaci [page 6, line 7] driver glances toward the in-vehicle display)
Regarding Claim 2,
Ramaci teaches the vehicle monitoring and control of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Ramaci teaches,
wherein: the one or more data sources further includes a mobile device associated with a driver of the vehicle and an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) server;
(Ramaci [page 21, lines 16-17] the platform or system comprises a... cellular communication device; computing device
Ramaci [page 23, lines 1-3] The electronic device of the invention is a fully functional wireless mobile communication device that is wearable, or attachable to a dashboard, windshield....for use by a driver
Ramaci [page 13, lines 31-34] with the enterprise resource planning (ERP) software platform and or services of, including but not limited to...an OEM, or the like.
Ramaci [page 43, lines 22-23] server may comprise an enterprise server of a manufacturer,... a vehicle parts vendor
Ramaci [page 15, lines 7-8] an application software platform accessible to multiple clients (users) executable on one or more remote servers)
the plurality of driving-related inputs includes location data from the mobile device and ADAS usage data from the OEM server; and
(Ramaci [page 26, line 12] sampling of a GPS receiver on the device
Ramaci [page 18, lines 29-30] vehicle sensors collection and or combined with ADAS (advanced driver assistance systems) data for accurate risk analysis
Ramaci [page 42, lines 12-13] gather data regarding...vehicle telematics usage.
Ramaci [page 43, lines 22-25] server may comprise an enterprise server of a manufacturer,... a vehicle parts vendor... server may contain on or more ERP planning platform accessible through on or more front-end APis.)
the system combines the location data with the ADAS usage data to identify the one or more risk-related events.
(Ramaci [page 18, lines 28-31] a comprehensive risk-transfer structure comprising device and vehicle sensors collection and or combined with ADAS (advanced driver 30 assistance systems) data for accurate risk analysis
Ramaci [page 33, lines 22-26] Event detection component 501 receives from the vehicle telematics device... various operational data inputs including IMU data 503, GPS data 504, and driver data 505. The identified event 506 is combined with environmental contextual data
Ramaci [page 33, lines 22-26] Event detection component 501 receives from the vehicle telematics device... various operational data inputs including IMU data 503, GPS data 504, and driver data 505. The identified event 506 is combined with environmental contextual data)
Regarding Claim 3,
Ramaci teaches the vehicle monitoring and control of Claim 2 as described earlier.
Ramaci teaches,
wherein the component of the ADAS includes at least one of an adaptive cruise control system, a forward collision warning alert system, an anti-lock brake system, an automatic emergency braking system, a lane keeping assist system, a lane departure warning alert system, a vehicle stability control system, a traction control system, or a wiper system.
(Ramaci [page 12, lines 19] usage of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, traction control data)
Regarding Claim 7,
Ramaci teaches the vehicle monitoring and control of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Ramaci teaches,
wherein the ADAS-based target output includes at least one of an alert message sent to one or more mobile devices, an update to a risk map presented at a display, a request for assistance sent to an emergency response device, a tow request sent to a device associated with a towing service, an instruction to perform an autonomous car action, or a pricing variable for an insurance pricing model.
(Ramaci [page 38, lines 16-18] a dynamic alert feed via a data link to the motor vehicle's automotive control circuit, wherein the AI digital assistant alerts drivers immediately to one or more performance measures
Ramaci [page 7, lines 2-5] the platform incorporates at least one portable, wearable, or attachable device, providing one or more user functions including, but not limited to, voice, data, voice, data, SMS, alerts
Ramaci [page 17, lines 13-14] AI digital assistant warns the risk of an increase in insurance premium based on real-time driver behavior.)
Regarding Claim 8,
Ramaci teaches the vehicle monitoring and control of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Ramaci teaches,
wherein the one or more data sources includes a mobile device having a wireless network connection with the vehicle, the mobile device including a touchscreen display, wherein at least some of the plurality of driving-related inputs are received at least in part via the touchscreen display.
(Ramaci [Abstract] The device is a fully functional wireless mobile communication device that is wearable, attachable to the interior of a vehicle, usable by a driver
Ramaci [page 27, lines 7-9] user I/O interfaces, including but not limited to a, microphone, speaker, button, LED, E-ink, display, touch screen
Ramaci [page 27, lines 20-21] The output devices may include displays, touch screen)
Regarding Claim 9,
Ramaci teaches the vehicle monitoring and control of Claim 7 as described earlier.
Ramaci teaches,
wherein the one or more data sources includes an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) server which receives data from the vehicle via a wireless connection with the vehicle.
(Ramaci [page 13, lines 31-34] with the enterprise resource planning (ERP) software platform and or services of, including but not limited to...an OEM, or the like.
Ramaci [page 43, lines 22-25] server may comprise an enterprise server of a manufacturer,... a vehicle parts vendor... server may contain on or more ERP planning platform accessible through on or more front-end APis.
Ramaci [page 43, lines 22-23] server may comprise an enterprise server of a manufacturer,... a vehicle parts vendor
Ramaci [page 7, lines 27-30] comprising a wireless communication device, the wireless communication device comprising:...one or more remote cloud-based servers
Ramaci [page 42, lines 12-13] gather data regarding...vehicle telematics usage.)
Regarding Claim 10,
Ramaci teaches the vehicle monitoring and control of Claim 9 as described earlier.
Ramaci teaches,
wherein the data at the OEM server includes at least one of: ADAS activation data associated with the vehicle, telematics data associated with the vehicle, or built sheet data associated with the vehicle.
(Ramaci [page 43, lines 22-23] server may comprise an enterprise server of a manufacturer,... a vehicle parts vendor
Ramaci [page 18, line 29] sensors collection and or combined with ADAS (advanced driver assistance systems) data
Ramaci [page 39, line 3] receiving relevant telematics data)
Regarding Claim 11,
Ramaci teaches,
A computer-readable non-transitory memory device storing instructions that, when executed by a one or more processors, performs operations comprising: receiving a plurality of driving-related inputs including advanced driving assistance system (ADAS) usage data collected from one or more data sources, the one or more data sources including a component of an advanced driving assistance system (ADAS) operating in a vehicle;
(Ramaci [page 3, lines 7-9] Vehicle telematics is the integration of wireless communications, monitoring systems, and location devices to provide real-time spatial and performance data of a vehicle
Ramaci [page 10, lines 31-34] The application collects, aggregates, and processes telematics data, single or compound variables, to generate analytical and or predictive information including but not limited to a pre-set, threshold, captured, or monitored vehicle component or parts parameters.
Ramaci [page 18, lines 29-30] vehicle sensors collection and or combined with ADAS (advanced driver assistance systems) data for accurate risk analysis)
determining one or more vehicle operation behavior values based on the plurality of driving-related inputs, the one or more vehicle operation behavior values corresponding to one or more risk-related events identified from the plurality of driving-related inputs;
(Ramaci [page 23, lines 13-14] device may contain one or more microprocessor, microcontroller
Ramaci [page 10, lines 21-22] The ecosystem enables operational and or feedback communication for a driver and one or more network participants (e.g., fleet manager, dispatcher, parents etc.).
Ramaci [page 35, line 5] The identified event 606
Ramaci [page 33, lines 22-26] Event detection component 501 receives from the vehicle telematics device... various operational data inputs including IMU data 503, GPS data 504, and driver data 505. The identified event 506 is combined with environmental contextual data)
generating an ADAS-based target output by using the one or more vehicle operation behavior values and at least one of the plurality of driving-related inputs to detect the one or more risk-related events; and
(Ramaci [page 18, lines 28-31] a comprehensive risk-transfer structure comprising device and vehicle sensors collection and or combined with ADAS (advanced driver 30 assistance systems) data for accurate risk analysis
Ramaci [page 33, lines 22-26] Event detection component 501 receives from the vehicle telematics device... various operational data inputs including IMU data 503, GPS data 504, and driver data 505. The identified event 506 is combined with environmental contextual data)
sending, to another device separate from the one or more processors, a communication based on the ADAS-based target output.
(Ramaci [page 7, lines 2-5] the platform incorporates at least one portable, wearable, or attachable device, providing one or more user functions including, but not limited to, voice, data, voice, data, SMS, alerts
Ramaci [page 10, lines 21-22] The ecosystem enables operational and or feedback communication for a driver and one or more network participants (e.g., fleet manager, dispatcher, parents etc.).)
Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17,
Ramaci teaches the vehicle monitoring and control of Claim 16 as described earlier.
Ramaci teaches,
wherein the ADAS usage data includes at least one of one or more ADAS feature activations, a time of an ADAS feature activation, an ADAS feature setting parameter, a change to an ADAS feature status, an indication of ADAS feature enablement or disablement, or an ADAS feature alert.
(Ramaci [page 12, lines 17-19] activation/usage of automated features, activation/ usage of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems)
Regarding Claim 18,
Ramaci teaches the vehicle monitoring and control of Claim 17 as described earlier.
Ramaci teaches,
wherein the ADAS usage data includes a change to the ADAS feature setting parameter corresponding to a user input received from a driver of the vehicle,
(Ramaci [page 29, lines 9-11] device 301 detection audio inputs/listens and interacts with a user to determine a user intent
Ramaci [page 12, lines 17-19] activation/usage of automated features, activation/ usage of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems)
and the ADAS-based target output considers the change as an increase or a decrease for a risk value of the one or more risk-related events.
(Ramaci [page 4, lines 9-15] The implementation of telematics has the potential to increase operational efficiency and improve driver safety in many ways, e.g., by tracking a vehicle’s location, mileage, and speed with GPS technology. … a driver’s actions can be monitored with accelerometers that measure changes …This information can then be used to improve driver performance through a one-on-one or in- vehicle coaching program
Ramaci [page 17, lines 13-14] AI digital assistant warns the risk of an increase in insurance premium based on real-time driver behavior.)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The 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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaci ("VEHICLE TELEMATIC ASSISTIVE APPARATUS AND SYSTEM", WIPO Publication Number: WO 2019213177 A1),in view of Kuehnle (“SYSTEM AND METHOD RATING DRIVER PERFORMANCE, PROVIDING DRIVING COACHING FEEDBACK, AND MAKING DRIVING INCIDENT PREDICTIONS”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20250006080 A1).
Regarding Claim 4,
Ramaci teaches the vehicle monitoring and control of Claim 2 as described earlier.
Ramaci does not teach wherein the one or more vehicle operation behavior values includes a ratio calculated using one or more ADAS feature activations of the ADAS.
Kuehnle teaches,
wherein the one or more vehicle operation behavior values includes a ratio calculated using one or more ADAS feature activations of the ADAS.
(Kuehnle [0121] Statistical data generated by the event detection engine
Kuehnle [0123] Average ACC use—Percentage of driving time driven with Autonomous Cruise Control (ACC) system (if available) activated.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle monitoring and control of Ramaci to incorporate the ADAS usage statistics of Verney for “Statistical data generated by the event detection engine” (Kuehnle [0121]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. ADAS usage statistics) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle monitoring and control) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “provide driver performance rating and driving coaching feedback and make incident and exceedance predictions.” Kuehnle [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 5,
Ramaci teaches the vehicle monitoring and control of Claim 4 as described earlier.
Ramaci teaches,
wherein the one or more ADAS feature activations includes at least one of one or more traction control activations or one or more automatic brake activations.
(Ramaci [page 12, lines 19] usage of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, traction control data)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaci and Kuehnle in view of Verney (“USING VEHICLE TELEMATICS TO COMPENSATE DRIVERS FOR INCREASES IN FUEL PRICES”, U.S. Patent Number: US 11449843 B1).
Regarding Claim 6,
Ramaci teaches the vehicle monitoring and control of Claim 4 as described earlier.
Ramaci does not teach wherein the ratio is calculated using the one or more ADAS feature activations over a predefined number of uses.
Verney teaches,
wherein the ratio is calculated using the one or more ADAS feature activations over a predefined number of uses.
(Verney [Col 22, Lines 27-40] vehicle telematics information indicates: use of electrical accessories for a predetermined percentage of time during trips taken in the vehicle (e.g., 50% of the time); ... for more than a predetermined amount of time (e.g., 7 minutes); ... a predetermined number of trips taken within a predetermined period of time that are each less than a predetermined distance (e.g., more than 5 trips less than one mile within a one hour time period); and recurrence of OBD codes indicating vehicle maintenance issues that need to be addressed.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle monitoring and control of Ramaci to incorporate the predefined number of uses of Verney for “telematics information indicates…during trips taken in the vehicle.” (Verney [Col 22, Lines 27-40]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. predefined number of uses) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle monitoring and control) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “indicating vehicle maintenance issues that need to be addressed” Verney [Col 22, Lines 27-40])
Claims 12-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaci ("VEHICLE TELEMATIC ASSISTIVE APPARATUS AND SYSTEM", WIPO Publication Number: WO 2019213177 A1),in view of Verney (“USING VEHICLE TELEMATICS TO COMPENSATE DRIVERS FOR INCREASES IN FUEL PRICES”, U.S. Patent Number: US 11449843 B1).
Regarding Claim 12,
Ramaci teaches the vehicle monitoring and control of Claim 11 as described earlier.
Ramaci teaches,
generating the ADAS-based target output includes determining an accident occurrence
(Ramaci [page 18, lines 31-32] value-added services (e.g., crash reporting, post-accident services, Emergency- Call/Breakdown-Call)
Ramaci does not teach the one or more vehicle operation behavior values include at least one of a predefined acceleration value over a predefined amount of time or a velocity direction angle relative to a road direction; based on the predefined acceleration value over the predefined amount of time or the velocity direction angle relative to the road direction.
Verney teaches,
the one or more vehicle operation behavior values include at least one of a predefined acceleration value over a predefined amount of time or a velocity direction angle relative to a road direction; based on the predefined acceleration value over the predefined amount of time or the velocity direction angle relative to the road direction.
(Verney [Col 7, Lines 33-36] telematics device 104 may also include an accelerometer used to detect and log acceleration and deceleration events that occur ... identify which of the acceleration events are “fast” acceleration events, which may occur when the driver accelerates at or above a preset acceleration threshold
Verney [Col 13, Lines 46-48] collect vehicle telematics data containing actual fuel economy information over a period of time (e.g., a number of years)
Verney [Col 16, Lines 18-20] provide leaderboards for a current time period (e.g., the current year) or a user-specified time period.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle monitoring and control of Ramaci to incorporate the predefined acceleration value over the predefined amount of time of Verney for “telematics device 104 may also include an accelerometer used to detect and log acceleration and deceleration events that occur.” (Verney [Col 7, Lines 33-36]) “… over a period of time” (Verney [Col 13, Lines 46-48]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. predefined acceleration value over the predefined amount of time) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle monitoring and control) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “provide leaderboards for a current time period (e.g., the current year)” Verney [Col 16, Lines 18-20])
Regarding Claim 13,
Ramaci and Verney teach the vehicle monitoring and control of Claim 12 as described earlier.
Ramaci teaches,
wherein sending the communication includes sending, responsive to determining the accident occurrence, at least one of: an accident alert to a mobile device, a pricing variable to a service pricing model, or a tow request to a device associated with a tow service.
(Ramaci [page 38, lines 16-18] a dynamic alert feed via a data link to the motor vehicle's automotive control circuit, wherein the AI digital assistant alerts drivers immediately to one or more performance measures
Ramaci [page 7, lines 2-5] the platform incorporates at least one portable, wearable, or attachable device, providing one or more user functions including, but not limited to, voice, data, voice, data, SMS, alerts
Ramaci [page 18, lines 31-32] value-added services (e.g., crash reporting, post-accident services, Emergency- Call/Breakdown-Call
Ramaci [page 17, lines 13-14] AI digital assistant warns the risk of an increase in insurance premium based on real-time driver behavior.)
Regarding Claim 14,
Ramaci and Verney teach the vehicle monitoring and control of Claim 13 as described earlier.
Ramaci does not teach wherein the operations further include performing, at the vehicle and responsive to the communication, at least one of an autonomous braking action or an autonomous acceleration action.
Verney teaches,
wherein the operations further include performing, at the vehicle and responsive to the communication, at least one of an autonomous braking action or an autonomous acceleration action.
(Verney [Col 8, Lines 57-59] vehicle operation information collected during the operation of the vehicle (e.g., speed, acceleration, braking, and turning))
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle monitoring and control of Ramaci to incorporate the predefined acceleration value over the predefined amount of time of Verney for “telematics device 104 may also include an accelerometer used to detect and log acceleration and deceleration events that occur.” (Verney [Col 7, Lines 33-36]) “… over a period of time” (Verney [Col 13, Lines 46-48]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. predefined acceleration value over the predefined amount of time) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle monitoring and control) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “provide leaderboards for a current time period (e.g., the current year)” Verney [Col 16, Lines 18-20])
Regarding Claim 15,
Ramaci and Verney teach the vehicle monitoring and control of Claim 12 as described earlier.
Ramaci teaches,
the one or more data sources includes a mobile device and an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) server; and
determining the one or more vehicle operation behavior values includes combining location data or motion data from the mobile device with ADAS feature activation data from the OEM server.
(Ramaci [page 23, lines 1-3] The electronic device of the invention is a fully functional wireless mobile communication device that is wearable, or attachable to a dashboard, windshield....for use by a driver
Ramaci [page 13, lines 31-34] with the enterprise resource planning (ERP) software platform and or services of, including but not limited to...an OEM, or the like.
Ramaci [page 43, lines 22-23] server may comprise an enterprise server of a manufacturer,... a vehicle parts vendor
Ramaci [page 18, lines 28-31] a comprehensive risk-transfer structure comprising device and vehicle sensors collection and or combined with ADAS (advanced driver 30 assistance systems) data for accurate risk analysis
Ramaci [page 33, lines 22-26] Event detection component 501 receives from the vehicle telematics device... various operational data inputs including IMU data 503, GPS data 504, and driver data 505. The identified event 506 is combined with environmental contextual data)
Regarding Claim 19,
Ramaci teaches the vehicle monitoring and control of Claim 16 as described earlier.
Ramaci teaches,
training a deep-learning model on a training dataset
(Ramaci [page 36, line 2] machine learning algorithms are used for analyses and predictions
Ramaci [page 30, lines 27-29] components may function based on models or rules, which may include acoustic models, specify grammar, lexicons, phrases, responses, and the like created through various training techniques.)
the communication is at least partly generated by the deep-learning model.
(Ramaci [page 36, line 2] machine learning algorithms are used for analyses and predictions)
Ramaci does not teach including historical policy pricing information.
Verney teaches,
historical policy pricing information
(Verney [Col 18, lines 18-20] the insurance policy table 204, and the vehicle table 206 may reside at the customer data store
Verney [Col 18, Lines 63-66] stores insurance policy records and includes columns for storing information related to insurance policies.
Verney [Col 2, Line 4] a credit toward an insurance policy premium)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle monitoring and control of Ramaci to incorporate the historical policy pricing information of Verney for an “insurance policy table.” (Verney [Col 18, lines 18-20]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. historical policy pricing information) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle monitoring and control) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “for storing information related to insurance policies” Verney [Col 18, Lines 63-66])
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaci in view of Balachandran (“OPERATOR DRIFT MAINTENANCE”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20220396259 A1).
Regarding Claim 20,
Ramaci teaches the vehicle monitoring and control of Claim 16 as described earlier.
Ramaci teaches,
wherein determining the one or more vehicle operation behavior values comprises identifying a high-risk behavior pattern
(Ramaci [page 8, lines 5-7] the AI digital assistant provides a risk factor status to the user based on vehicle status, vehicle environment, or driver behavior.)
Ramaci does not teach corresponding to at least one of donuts or street racing.
Balachandran teaches,
corresponding to at least one of donuts or street racing.
(Balachandran [0040] telematics
Balachandran [0041] sensors 52 that can be used to detect various conditions internal or external to the vehicle
Balachandran [0019] a driver may want to drift. For example, many race car drivers intentionally cause a vehicle to drift in order to navigate sharp turns at peak efficiency. While drifting, the vehicle will often point in a different direction than it is moving. Put another way, the racer operates the vehicle at a high sideslip angle (i.e. the angle between the direction the vehicle is pointing, and the vehicle's linear velocity vector). In this way, the racer is able to navigate the turn faster than would be possible in the grip driving range.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle monitoring and control of Ramaci to incorporate the donuts or street racing determination of Balachandran for “drifting.” (Balachandran [0019]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. donuts or street racing determination) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle monitoring and control) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “navigate the turn faster than would be possible” Balachandran [0019])
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gaudin (“AUTOMATICALLY TRACKING DRIVING ACTIVITY”, U.S. Publication Number: 20210053579 A1) proposes to detect and act upon deactivated vehicle components. The system and method include receiving measurements data associated with driving activity. The measurements data includes an indication that at least one feature of an Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) of a vehicle has been deactivated for a driving activity. The system and method may include receiving historical driving data including a history of at least one driving activity aided by activation of the alert from the ADAS feature. The system and method may compare the measurements data to the historical driving data, determine a likelihood level that the feature of the ADAS would have provided the alert had the feature been activated based upon the comparing, and set, based at least upon the determining, at least a portion of an operator profile associated with an operator of the vehicle with the likelihood level.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10am to 4pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Tran, can be reached on (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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights