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 Application
This is a final rejection in response to claim amendments and Remarks submitted on April 22, 2026 relating to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/913,126 filed on October 11, 2024. This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/644,312, filed on December 14, 2021, now U.S. Patent No. 12,143,459 B2, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/724,069, filed on October 3, 2017, now abandoned. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 12-13, 16-17 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
The Remarks submitted by Applicant on April 22, 2026 have been fully considered, however, are not persuasive.
With respect to the Section 101 Rejection Applicant has amended the independent claims and asserts that the claims satisfy the first subject matter eligibility condition (Step 2A) because they recite features that operate in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim as they operate in conjunction with a vehicle by detecting, using a speed sensor of a vehicle, a first speed pattern of a vehicle and activating a feedback device configured at the vehicle to provide haptic output representing the driving behavior which recite a practical application. (Remarks, pp. 8-9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are being used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to technology. (See Section 101 Rejection below). Applicant further asserts that with respect to the second subject matter eligibility condition (Step 2B), the amended independent claims recite the unconventional technique of using a vehicle and components configured thereat to both capture sensor data and to provide feedback to the user based on the sensor data which amounts to a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components which satisfies the requirements of Section 101. (Remarks, p. 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the same reasons articulated with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea. (See Section 101 Rejection below). The Section 101 Rejection is maintained.
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 pursuant to 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 - Statutory Class
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method. Claims 9-16 are directed to a vehicle. Claims 17 -20 are directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions. Therefore, on its face, each of the claims is directed to a statutory class of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Abstract Idea
Claim 9 recites detecting a first speed pattern of a vehicle while the vehicle traverses a first path over a first period of time; determining, based on the first speed pattern, a driving behavior exhibited by the vehicle over the first period; accessing stored information indicating a second speed pattern exhibited by the vehicle while the vehicle traversed a second path over a second period of time prior to the first period; determining, based on the first speed pattern and the second speed pattern, a value representing a consistency of the driving behavior exhibited over the first period; and activating, based on the value, haptic feedback capability to provide haptic output representing the driving behavior. Claim 9 recites the abstract idea of detecting a first speed pattern of a vehicle while the vehicle traverses a first path over a first period of time and determining a driving behavior exhibited by the vehicle over the first period, accessing stored information indicating a second speed pattern exhibited by the vehicle while the vehicle traversed a second path over a second period of time prior to the first period, determining a value representing a consistency of the driving behavior exhibited over the first period and providing haptic feedback representing the driving behavior which amounts to fundamental economic practices including mitigating risk falling under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). Claims 1 and 17 recite the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Practical Application
Claim 9 recites a vehicle comprising a speed sensor, a feedback device, one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions and a feedback device carried by the vehicle. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are being used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to technology because they only manipulate data. The claims do not invoke a particular machine as our guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned, they do not transform matter as they only manipulate data which is not matter.
Step 2B – Significantly more
As set forth in the discussion in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are being used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to technology because they only manipulate data. Based on the aforementioned, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims
Claim 2 (determining, based on real-time telematics data received from a telematics sensor configured at the vehicle, to provide the haptic output using the haptic feedback capability of the feedback device), Claims 3, 11 and 19 (determining the driving behavior comprises: detecting, using an accelerometer of the vehicle, a first acceleration of the vehicle while the vehicle traverses the first path over the first period of time; and determining the value based on the first acceleration), Claims 4 and 20 (activating the haptic feedback capability of the feedback device is further based on determining that the value exceeds a threshold), Claims 5 and 13 (the feedback device is configured at an on-board computer configured at the vehicle), Claim 6 (the feedback device comprises a field-programmable gate array), Claim 7 (the value represents a frequency of the driving behavior), Claim 8 (further comprising activating, based on the value, an audio feedback capability of a second feedback device configured at the vehicle to provide audio output representing the driving behavior), Claims 10 and Claim 18 (determining the driving behavior comprises: detecting, using a telematics sensor of the vehicle, a first distance between the vehicle and a second vehicle while the vehicle traverses the first path over the first period of time; and determining the value based on the first distance), Claim 12 (the vehicle further comprises a telematics sensor, and the operations further comprise determining, based on telematics data received from the telematics sensor, to provide the haptic output using the haptic feedback capability of the feedback device), Claim 14 (the feedback device comprises a field-programmable gate array), Claim 15 (the value represents a frequency of the driving behavior) and Claim 16 (the vehicle further comprises a second feedback device; and the operations further comprise activating, based on the value, a visual feedback capability of the second feedback device to present a notification comprising a representation of the driving behavior on a display) contain additional elements (which are underlined above) that are recited at a high level of generality and used as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or further define and add specificity to the abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
As such, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. For instance, in In re Hayes Microcomputer Products, the written description requirement was satisfied because the specification disclosed the specific type of microcomputer used in the claimed invention as well as the necessary steps for implementing the claimed function. The disclosure was in sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art would know how to program the microprocessor to perform the necessary steps described in the specification. In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods., Inc. Patent Litigation, 982 F.2d 1527, (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to the elements added by Applicant in independent Claims 1, 9 and 17, “activating a haptic capability of a feedback device [based on a value representing consistency of driving behavior] … to provide haptic output representing driving behavior”, there is no written support in the Specification to support this limitation. Although the Specification contains discussions of feedback in general, “haptic feedback” is only discussed once, generally, at Paragraph 14 as a capability that that may be included by mobile devices and/or on-board computers. The Specification offers no explanation of how the invention activates a device’s haptic feedback capabilities based on a driving consistency value and then provides haptic feedback to the driver representing driving behavior.
In addition, amended Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Amended Claim 8 specifies the use of “audio feedback capability based on a second feedback device … to provide audio output representing the driving behavior.” As discussed above, the Specification contains discussions of feedback in general, however, “audio capability” is only discussed once, generally, at Paragraph 14 as a capability that that may be included by mobile devices and/or on-board computers. The Specification offers no explanation of how the invention activates a device’s audio feedback capability based on a second feedback device to provide audio output representing the driving behavior.
Conclusion
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 GEORGE PROIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-4573. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/GEORGE N. PROIOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights