DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Priority
The instant application has a filing date of December 31, 2024, and claims priority as a continuation-in-part (CIP) of application # 18/765,092 (filed on July 5, 2024).
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
v Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are drawn to methods (i.e., a process), claim(s) 8-14 is/are drawn to systems (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 15-20 is/are drawn to non-transitory computer readable storage media (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 8 and 15) recites/describes the following steps;
receiving telematics data associated with a trip by a vehicle operated by a user;
determining, based on the telematics data, that the user has achieved a driving streak of two or more trips without use of a mobile electronic device of the user for any purpose other than pre-approved purposes during the two or more trips;
awarding one or more streak tokens to the user based on the user completing a predetermined action;
detecting a break in the driving streak of the user;
redeeming at least one streak token of the one or more streak tokens of the user; and
mending, using the at least one streak token, the driving streak of the user
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a process for rewarding drivers for operating their vehicle without use of the mobile devices other than for pre-approved purposes with a reward program that involves consecutive trip streak monitoring and mistake forgiveness tokens. Specifically, the process involves determining streaks of consecutive trips where the user has only used their mobile device for pre-approved purposes based on received telematics data, awarding redeemable streak tokens based on the user completing a predetermined action, detecting a break in the driving streak of the user; redeeming at least one streak token of the one or more streak tokens of the user; and mending, using the at least one streak token, the driving streak of the user. This process amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; and/or an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior in light of Applicant’s specification); and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally and/or alternatively, each of the above-recited steps/functions, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) performing one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 8 and 15 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim. The same reasoning is similarly applicable to the limitations in the remaining dependent claims, and their respective limitations are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of
“...being implemented via execution of computing instructions configured to run on one or more processors and stored on one or more non-transitory computer-readable media...” (claim 1),
“...a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when run on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising...” (claim 8)
“...a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computing instructions, the computing instructions, when run on one or more processors, causing the one or more processors to perform operations...” (claim 15)
“...via a user interface of the mobile electronic device of the user...” (claims 5, 6, 12, 13, and 19)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions “...being implemented via execution of computing instructions configured to run on one or more processors and stored on one or more non-transitory computer-readable media...” (claim 1) or by “...a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when run on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising...” (claim 8) or by “...a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computing instructions, the computing instructions, when run on one or more processors, causing the one or more processors to perform operations...” (claim 15) and/or the recitation of “...via a user interface of the mobile electronic device of the user...” (claims 5, 6, 12, 13, and 19) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s own disclosure explains that these “additional” elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., the as-filed specification at paragraphs [0037]-[0070] and [0115]-[0116]). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recited additional element(s) of “...via a user interface of the mobile electronic device of the user...” (claims 5, 6, 12, 13, and 19) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments, such as distributed computing environments and/or the internet, where information is represented digitally, exchanged between computers over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The recited element(s) of “receiving telematics data associated with a trip by a vehicle operated by a user” (claims 1, 8, and 15), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional element(s) do are deemed “extra-solution” because all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, and because such data gathering steps have long been held to be insignificant pre/post-solution activity. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h) and (g)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. For example, Applicant’s as-filed specification suggests that it is advantageous to implement the claimed business process because doing so can help to encourage safe driving and decrease distracted driving, while reducing insurance premiums and/or cost of insuring drivers (see, for example, Applicant’s as-filed disclosure at paragraphs [0114], [0140], [0003], [0035], [0049], [0068], [0084], and [0092] ). These are non-technical business advantages/improvements. At most, the ordered combination of claim elements is directed to a non-technical improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., an improved process for rewarding drivers for operating their vehicle without use of the mobile devices other than for pre-approved purposes).
Dependent claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, and 20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, and 20 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). For example, claim 2 recites “wherein: awarding the one or more streak tokens comprises: making a determination that the user has completed a milestone; and awarding a first streak token in response to the determination”. This is an abstract limitation which further sets forth the abstract idea encompassed by claim 2. This limitation is not an “additional element”, and therefore it is not subject to further analysis under Step 2A- Prong Two or Step 2B. The same logic applies to each of the other dependent claims, whose limitations are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity and clarity. With respect to the other dependent claims not specifically listed here - each of the limitations/elements recited in these dependent claims other than those identified as being “additional” elements above (at the beginning of the Prong One analysis), are further part of the abstract idea encompassed by each respective dependent claim (i.e. it should be understood that these limitations are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions “...being implemented via execution of computing instructions configured to run on one or more processors and stored on one or more non-transitory computer-readable media...” (claim 1) or by “...a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when run on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising...” (claim 8) or by “...a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computing instructions, the computing instructions, when run on one or more processors, causing the one or more processors to perform operations...” (claim 15) and/or the recitation of “...via a user interface of the mobile electronic device of the user...” (claims 5, 6, 12, 13, and 19) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “...via a user interface of the mobile electronic device of the user...” (claims 5, 6, 12, 13, and 19) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited element(s) of “receiving telematics data associated with a trip by a vehicle operated by a user” (claims 1, 8, and 15), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional element(s), taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of telematics data analysis and vehicle insurance. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more”. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This conclusion is based on a factual determination. The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network. Furthermore, Examiner takes Official Notice that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional at the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the lack of technical detail/description in Applicant’s own specification provides implicit evidence that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, and 20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, and 20 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
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.
Claim 11 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
v Claim 11 recites "wherein: determining that a single trip occurred during which the mobile electronic device was used for a purpose other than the pre-approved purposes, wherein the single trip was for the vehicle operated by the user; and applying the at least one streak token of the one or more streak tokens to bridge a gap in the driving streak of the user caused by the single trip” and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The language comprises syntax/structural deficiencies that render the claim scope unclear. The claim language does not appear to set forth a further operation the system is configured to perform or further define/narrow one of the previously recited operations. For example, the referred to “wherein determining that a single trip occurred during which the mobile electronic device was used for a purpose other than the pre-approved purposes” and “wherein...applying the at least one streak token of the one or more streak tokens to bridge a gap in the driving streak of the user caused by the single trip” appears to lack antecedent basis. Therefore, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly and distinctly claim the subject matter which the application regards as the invention. It appears as if claim 11 may have critical language inadvertently omitted. For example claims 4 and 18 recite similar limitations, but include additional limitations which render the claim scope clear For the purpose of examination, the phrase “wherein: determining that a single trip occurred during which the mobile electronic device was used for a purpose other than the pre-approved purposes, wherein the single trip was for the vehicle operated by the user; and applying the at least one streak token of the one or more streak tokens to bridge a gap in the driving streak of the user caused by the single trip” will be interpreted as being “wherein: detecting the break comprises: determining that a single trip occurred during which the mobile electronic device was used for a purpose other than the pre-approved purposes, wherein the single trip was for the vehicle operated by the user; and mending, using the at least one streak token, the driving streak of the user comprises: applying the at least one streak token of the one or more streak tokens to bridge a gap in the driving streak of the user caused by the single trip.”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
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.
v Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu-Hoffman et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,026,243, July 17, 2018 - hereinafter "Hsu-Hoffman”) in view of Davis et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2021/0142419, May 13, 2021 - hereinafter "Davis”)
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, Hsu-Hoffman teaches a method being implemented via execution of computing instructions configured to run on one or more processors and stored on one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (claim 1), a system (claim 8) and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computing instructions, the computing instructions, when run on one or more processors, causing the one or more processors to perform operations (claim 15) comprising;
one or more processors; and (claim 8) (Fig 1 tag 103, 5:1-67 & 6:1-40)
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when run on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (claim 8) (Fig 1 tags 1050 and 107, 5:1-67 & 6:1-40)
receiving telematics data associated with a trip by a vehicle operated by a user; (7:45-67 “collect drive data...may include vehicle telematics data or any other data related to events occurring during a vehicle's trip (e.g., an impact to a part of the vehicle, a deployed airbag, windshield wiper use, headlight use, braking habits, speed, banking, etc.). For example, drive data may include location information such as GPS coordinates that indicate the geographical location of the driver computing device 100c as well as speed and acceleration data that may be used to detect speeding (e.g., exceeding a predefined speed or known speed limit) and hard-braking events. The driver computing device 100c or vehicle computing device 100v may be further configured to evaluate the drive data and to send notifications to the vehicle telematics management system (e.g., driving analysis server 205). In particular, the driver computing devices 100c and/or vehicle computing device 100v may send the results for a given drive to the driving analysis server 20...”, 9:40-64 “ operational sensors 220...of recording additional conditions inside or outside of the vehicle 202...may detect conditions such as the number of the passengers in the vehicle 202, and potential sources of driver distraction within the vehicle (e.g., pets, phone usage...may store data within the vehicle 202, and/or may transmit the data to one or more external computer systems (e.g., a driving analysis server 205)...may be configured to transmit data to a driving analysis server 205 via the subsystem 206”, see also 2:1-12)
determining, based on the telematics data, that the user has achieved a driving streak of two or more trips without violating preconfigured safe driving criteria including criteria related to phone usage during the two or more trips; (4:1-52 “may collect telematics data, while server devices may process that data into ratings and/or streaks (e.g., a number of consecutive ratings of a predetermined level)...The predetermined threshold value needed for a drive to count in a streak may also change depending on the level and/or the user. For example, a streak at level two may have a threshold value of eighty, while a streak at level three may have a threshold value of eighty-five...a streak of ten drives beyond a threshold value to reach the next level... may need a streak of ten good drives thereafter to achieve level three. The ratings or streaks may be used to generate a leveling system. For example, a driver may be awarded a rating for each drive or trip. If a rating meets a predetermined value, it may increase a number of consecutive ratings above a threshold in a streak (or reset the streak (e.g., to zero) if it does not). If, by meeting the predetermined value and thereby increasing the number of consecutive ratings in the steak, the streak contains at least a predetermined number of drives, the driver may receive or be promoted to an increased level (e.g., the next higher level in the competitive environment)....This may promote better driving through a competitive, game-like atmosphere.” – therefore the system analyzes the telematics data for each drive (i.e., trip) and determines whether the user’s safe driving for that trip qualifies and if so increments their driving streak (i.e., determines that they achieved a driving streak of two or more trips without violating preconfigured safe driving criteria, 9:40-46 “ operational sensors 220...of recording additional conditions inside or outside of the vehicle 202...may detect conditions such as the number of the passengers in the vehicle 202, and potential sources of driver distraction within the vehicle (e.g., pets, phone usage...” – criteria related to phone usage, 14:60-67 & 15:1-50 – driving streaks based on consecutive qualifying trips, 1:15-18 & 11:10-43 & 13:16-23 & 14:39-45 the determination is flexible and may involve calculating a score/rating and can be based on any data or combination of data related to driving and used to encourage safe behaviors)
awarding one or more streak tokens to the user based on the user completing a predetermined action; detecting a break in the driving streak of the user; redeeming at least one streak token of the one or more streak tokens of the user; and mending, using the at least one streak token, the driving streak of the user (4:1-52 “may process that data into ratings and/or streaks (e.g., a number of consecutive ratings of a predetermined level)...The predetermined threshold value needed for a drive to count in a streak may also change depending on the level and/or the user. For example, a streak at level two may have a threshold value of eighty, while a streak at level three may have a threshold value of eighty-five. In some instances, credits or strikes may be afforded before a streak is reset. For example, if a driver needs a streak of ten drives beyond a threshold value to reach the next level, the driver may be given three credits which will forgive the driver for three drives that fail to reach the threshold value. For example, if the user scores eighty but the threshold value is eighty-five, a streak may not disappear, but one of three credits may disappear. After the three credits are used, if the user scores under the threshold value again, then the streak may reset to zero....The ratings or streaks may be used to generate a leveling system. For example, a driver may be awarded a rating for each drive or trip. If a rating meets a predetermined value, it may increase a number of consecutive ratings above a threshold in a streak (or reset the streak (e.g., to zero) if it does not). If, by meeting the predetermined value and thereby increasing the number of consecutive ratings in the steak, the streak contains at least a predetermined number of drives, the driver may receive or be promoted to an increased level (e.g., the next higher level in the competitive environment). Each level may require a larger or longer streak than the level before it. Further, rewards may be given based on the ratings. For example, monetary rewards may be given for obtaining a level, a certain size streak, a predetermined number of perfect scores in a time period, or other such threshold. These ratings, streaks, levels, and rewards may be shared between users. For example, a driver may have a list of friends, and may be able to share their ratings, streaks, levels, and/or rewards between friends. This may promote better driving through a competitive, game-like atmosphere” & 14:64-67 & 15:8-50 “If the driver failed to achieve the threshold, such as by achieving a score less than the threshold, the driving analysis server 205 may proceed to reset (e.g., to zero drives or trips having a predetermined threshold score) a rating streak at step 350...The game-like driving program may include driving levels, with each level including a rating streak threshold...upon reaching a rating streak threshold for a particular level, the driver may be promoted to a new level and a rating streak may reset (e.g., consecutive number of driver ratings may return to zero) and a number of consecutive driver ratings above a driver rating threshold may increase in association with being promoted to the next level (e.g., rating streak threshold for higher levels may include more consecutive driver ratings above the driver performance rating threshold than lower levels). For example, a first level (e.g., level 1) may have a rating streak threshold of five driver ratings above a predetermined threshold. Accordingly, a driver may need a streak of five drives rated above the driver performance rating threshold to meet the parameters of level 1 and advance to level 2. In some examples, a second level (e.g., level 2) may have a rating streak threshold of ten consecutive driver ratings above the driver performance rating threshold. Accordingly, a driver may have ten driver ratings above the driver performance rating threshold in order to complete level 2 and advance to level 3...If a driver does not meet the driver rating threshold, the driver's streak (e.g., number of consecutive drives above the driver rating threshold) may reset to zero, but the driver may maintain his or her level” – therefore the system may grant a driver a certain number of credits/strikes (i.e., streak tokens) when they achieve a new level (e.g., they are granted three credits/strikes when they advance from level 1 to level 2 by achieving a streak of 5 qualifying trips – i.e., “awarding one or more streak tokens to the user based on the user completing a predetermined action”) and these credits/strikes are redeemable so that their streak doesn’t disappear when they have a non-qualifying trip and their streak is maintained (i.e., the system detects a break in the driving streak of the user; redeems at least one streak token of the one or more streak tokens of the user; and mends, using the at least one streak token, the driving streak of the user)
Although Hsu-Hoffman mentions that the telematics data may include phone usage data because it is associated with driver distraction (9:40-64), Hsu-Hoffman does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the preconfigured safe driving criteria is not using a mobile electronic device of the user for any purpose other than pre-approved purposes. Hsu-Hoffman does not appear to explicitly disclose
trips without use of a mobile electronic device of the user for any purpose other than pre-approved purposes
However, Davis discloses receiving and analyzing telematics data ([0082]-[0083], [0110], [0116]) to determine events that occurred while driving on a trip ([0005], [0019], [0027]-[0028] – trip-based, [0041], [0056], [0060], [0084]-[0087]). Davis discloses wherein the system may track streaks of consecutive periods where a driver had no negative/unsafe event(s) ([0005], [0024], [0027]-[0028], [0046], [0062], [0073]-[0074], [0087]). Furthermore, Davis discloses wherein the preconfigured safe driving criteria may be not using a mobile electronic device of the user for any purpose other than pre-approved purposes. Davis discloses where the criteria may be
trips without use of a mobile electronic device of the user for any purpose other than pre-approved purposes ([0005] “certain electronic device events may be considered “good” behaviors, such as a locking of the electronic device” – pre-approved purposes such as locking the phone are fine, [0019] “Various techniques may be used to break down types and frequencies of usage (with discounts or incentives inversely related to usage events that are in the “bad” usage category). For example, no usage may result in the best discount or incentive, as hands-free usage has not been shown to result in a lower cognitive load than regular device usage while driving. In this model, GPS/Mapping applications may not “count” as usage. For further example, hands-free may result in some discount or incentive, whereby this usage may be detected based upon Bluetooth headset activation and linkage. Further, for example, non-hands-free usage may result in no discount or incentive at a certain threshold of usage events. Of course, some drivers may consider texting while stopped at a light or in traffic to not be a problem, but this usage is still a risk (and may be illegal in some jurisdictions).” – pre-approved purposes such as using GPS/mapping application are ok, [0054]-[0056] “may qualify...if the amount of usage events in a certain trip or within a certain time period is below a threshold amount (or equates to zero), and/or when positive usage events are detected during the trip or within the time period...” – the preconfigured safe driving criteria may be not using a mobile electronic device of the user for any purpose other than pre-approved purposes during a trip, [0062] “, a challenge or goal may be initiated, whereby the usage event or combination of usage events may determine whether the challenge or goal is reached or attained. For example, the insurance provider 215 may offer (and the electronic device 210 may indicate that) a $30 premium payment discount may be attained if the user refrains from making phone calls for 3,000 consecutive minutes while the individual is traveling with the electronic device 210 in the vehicle. Additionally, the consecutive minute counter may reset if the electronic device 210 determines that a phone call has been made”, see also [0024]-[0025] & [0027]-[0028] & [0040]-[0041] & [0060])
Davis suggests it is advantageous to include, because where the criteria may be trips without use of a mobile electronic device of the user for any purpose other than pre-approved purposes, because phone usage while driving is highly dangerous and specifically focusing on phone usage other than for pre-approved purposes (i.e., those deemed safe) can help decrease unsafe driving and motivate drivers to operate their vehicle in a safe manner ([0002]-[0005] & [0018]-[0019] & [0023]]-[0025])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, system, and medium of Hsu-Hoffman to include where the criteria may be trips without use of a mobile electronic device of the user for any purpose other than pre-approved purposes, as taught by Davis, because phone usage while driving is highly dangerous and specifically focusing on phone usage other than for pre-approved purposes (i.e., those deemed safe) can help decrease unsafe driving and motivate drivers to operate their vehicle in a safe manner.
Furthermore, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the preconfigured safe driving criteria of Davis (i.e., where the criteria may be trips without use of a mobile electronic device of the user for any purpose other than pre-approved purposes) for the preconfigured safe driving criteria of Hsu-Hoffman. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
With respect to claims 2, 9, and 16, Hsu-Hoffman teaches the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15;
wherein: awarding the one or more streak tokens comprises: making a determination that the user has completed a milestone; and awarding a first streak token in response to the determination (4:1-52 “may process that data into ratings and/or streaks (e.g., a number of consecutive ratings of a predetermined level)...The predetermined threshold value needed for a drive to count in a streak may also change depending on the level and/or the user. For example, a streak at level two may have a threshold value of eighty, while a streak at level three may have a threshold value of eighty-five. In some instances, credits or strikes may be afforded before a streak is reset. For example, if a driver needs a streak of ten drives beyond a threshold value to reach the next level, the driver may be given three credits which will forgive the driver for three drives that fail to reach the threshold value. For example, if the user scores eighty but the threshold value is eighty-five, a streak may not disappear, but one of three credits may disappear. After the three credits are used, if the user scores under the threshold value again, then the streak may reset to zero....The ratings or streaks may be used to generate a leveling system. For example, a driver may be awarded a rating for each drive or trip. If a rating meets a predetermined value, it may increase a number of consecutive ratings above a threshold in a streak (or reset the streak (e.g., to zero) if it does not). If, by meeting the predetermined value and thereby increasing the number of consecutive ratings in the steak, the streak contains at least a predetermined number of drives, the driver may receive or be promoted to an increased level (e.g., the next higher level in the competitive environment). Each level may require a larger or longer streak than the level before it. Further, rewards may be given based on the ratings. For example, monetary rewards may be given for obtaining a level, a certain size streak, a predetermined number of perfect scores in a time period, or other such threshold. These ratings, streaks, levels, and rewards may be shared between users. For example, a driver may have a list of friends, and may be able to share their ratings, streaks, levels, and/or rewards between friends. This may promote better driving through a competitive, game-like atmosphere” & 14:64-67 & 15:8-50 “If the driver failed to achieve the threshold, such as by achieving a score less than the threshold, the driving analysis server 205 may proceed to reset (e.g., to zero drives or trips having a predetermined threshold score) a rating streak at step 350...The game-like driving program may include driving levels, with each level including a rating streak threshold...upon reaching a rating streak threshold for a particular level, the driver may be promoted to a new level and a rating streak may reset (e.g., consecutive number of driver ratings may return to zero) and a number of consecutive driver ratings above a driver rating threshold may increase in association with being promoted to the next level (e.g., rating streak threshold for higher levels may include more consecutive driver ratings above the driver performance rating threshold than lower levels). For example, a first level (e.g., level 1) may have a rating streak threshold of five driver ratings above a predetermined threshold. Accordingly, a driver may need a streak of five drives rated above the driver performance rating threshold to meet the parameters of level 1 and advance to level 2. In some examples, a second level (e.g., level 2) may have a rating streak threshold of ten consecutive driver ratings above the driver performance rating threshold. Accordingly, a driver may have ten driver ratings above the driver performance rating threshold in order to complete level 2 and advance to level 3...If a driver does not meet the driver rating threshold, the driver's streak (e.g., number of consecutive drives above the driver rating threshold) may reset to zero, but the driver may maintain his or her level” – therefore the system may grant a driver a certain number of credits/strikes (i.e., streak tokens) when they achieve a new level (e.g., they are granted three credits/strikes when they advance from level 1 to level 2 by achieving a streak of 5 qualifying trips which is a milestone – i.e., “awarding the one or more streak tokens comprises: making a determination that the user has completed a milestone; and awarding a first streak token in response to the determination”)
With respect to claims 3, 10, and 17, Hsu-Hoffman teaches the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15;
wherein: awarding the one or more streak tokens comprises: determining a driving score based on the telematics data; and awarding a first streak token based on the driving score (4:1-52 “may process that data into ratings and/or streaks (e.g., a number of consecutive ratings of a predetermined level)...The predetermined threshold value needed for a drive to count in a streak may also change depending on the level and/or the user. For example, a streak at level two may have a threshold value of eighty, while a streak at level three may have a threshold value of eighty-five. In some instances, credits or strikes may be afforded before a streak is reset. For example, if a driver needs a streak of ten drives beyond a threshold value to reach the next level, the driver may be given three credits which will forgive the driver for three drives that fail to reach the threshold value. For example, if the user scores eighty but the threshold value is eighty-five, a streak may not disappear, but one of three credits may disappear. After the three credits are used, if the user scores under the threshold value again, then the streak may reset to zero....The ratings or streaks may be used to generate a leveling system. For example, a driver may be awarded a rating for each drive or trip. If a rating meets a predetermined value, it may increase a number of consecutive ratings above a threshold in a streak (or reset the streak (e.g., to zero) if it does not). If, by meeting the predetermined value and thereby increasing the number of consecutive ratings in the steak, the streak contains at least a predetermined number of drives, the driver may receive or be promoted to an increased level (e.g., the next higher level in the competitive environment). Each level may require a larger or longer streak than the level before it. Further, rewards may be given based on the ratings. For example, monetary rewards may be given for obtaining a level, a certain size streak, a predetermined number of perfect scores in a time period, or other such threshold. These ratings, streaks, levels, and rewards may be shared between users. For example, a driver may have a list of friends, and may be able to share their ratings, streaks, levels, and/or rewards between friends. This may promote better driving through a competitive, game-like atmosphere” & 14:64-67 & 15:8-50 “If the driver failed to achieve the threshold, such as by achieving a score less than the threshold, the driving analysis server 205 may proceed to reset (e.g., to zero drives or trips having a predetermined threshold score) a rating streak at step 350...The game-like driving program may include driving levels, with each level including a rating streak threshold...upon reaching a rating streak threshold for a particular level, the driver may be promoted to a new level and a rating streak may reset (e.g., consecutive number of driver ratings may return to zero) and a number of consecutive driver ratings above a driver rating threshold may increase in association with being promoted to the next level (e.g., rating streak threshold for higher levels may include more consecutive driver ratings above the driver performance rating threshold than lower levels). For example, a first level (e.g., level 1) may have a rating streak threshold of five driver ratings above a predetermined threshold. Accordingly, a driver may need a streak of five drives rated above the driver performance rating threshold to meet the parameters of level 1 and advance to level 2. In some examples, a second level (e.g., level 2) may have a rating streak threshold of ten consecutive driver ratings above the driver performance rating threshold. Accordingly, a driver may have ten driver ratings above the driver performance rating threshold in order to complete level 2 and advance to level 3...If a driver does not meet the driver rating threshold, the driver's streak (e.g., number of consecutive drives above the driver rating threshold) may reset to zero, but the driver may maintain his or her level” – therefore the system may grant a driver a certain number of credits/strikes (i.e., streak tokens) when they achieve a new level (e.g., they are granted three credits/strikes when they advance from level 1 to level 2 by achieving a streak of 5 qualifying trips) and a driving score is calculated for each trip and trip success/failure is based on this score – i.e., “awarding the one or more streak tokens comprises: determining a driving score based on the telematics data; and awarding a first streak token based on the driving score”)
With respect to claims 4, 11, and 18, Hsu-Hoffman teaches the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15;
wherein: detecting the break comprises: determining that a single trip occurred during which the mobile electronic device was used for a purpose other than the pre-approved purposes, wherein the single trip was for the vehicle operated by the user; and mending, using the at least one streak token, the driving streak of the user comprises: applying the at least one streak token of the one or more streak tokens to bridge a gap in the driving streak of the user caused by the single trip (4:1-52 “may process that data into ratings and/or streaks (e.g., a number of consecutive ratings of a predetermined level)...The predetermined threshold value needed for a drive to count in a streak may also change depending on the level and/or the user. For example, a streak at level two may have a threshold value of eighty, while a streak at level three may have a threshold value of eighty-five. In some instances, credits or strikes may be afforded before a streak is reset. For example, if a driver needs a streak of ten drives beyond a threshold value to reach the next level, the driver may be given three credits which will forgive the driver for three drives that fail to reach the threshold value. For example, if the user scores eighty but the threshold value is eighty-five, a streak may not disappear, but one of three credits may disappear. After the three credits are used, if the user scores under the threshold value again, then the streak may reset to zero....The ratings or streaks may be used to generate a leveling system. For example, a driver may be awarded a rating for each drive or trip. If a rating meets a predetermined value, it may increase a number of consecutive ratings above a threshold in a streak (or reset the streak (e.g., to zero) if it does not). If, by meeting the predetermined value and thereby increasing the number of consecutive ratings in the steak, the streak contains at least a predetermined number of drives, the driver may receive or be promoted to an increased level (e.g., the next higher level in the competitive environment). Each level may require a larger or longer streak than the level before it. Further, rewards may be given based on the ratings. For example, monetary rewards may be given for obtaining a level, a certain size streak, a predetermined number of perfect scores in a time period, or other such threshold. These ratings, streaks, levels, and rewards may be shared between users. For example, a driver may have a list of friends, and may be able to share their ratings, streaks, levels, and/or rewards between friends. This may promote better driving through a competitive, game-like atmosphere” & 14:64-67 & 15:8-50 –the system granted credits/strikes are redeemable so that their streak doesn’t disappear when they have a non-qualifying trip and their streak is maintained (i.e., the system the break by determining that a single trip occurred during which the mobile electronic device was used for a purpose other than the pre-approved purposes (per combination with Davis above), wherein the single trip was for the vehicle operated by the user; and mending, using the at least one streak token, the driving streak of the user comprises: applying the at least one streak token of the one or more streak tokens to bridge a gap in the driving streak of the user caused by the single trip)
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 19, Hsu-Hoffman and Davis teach the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15. Hsu-Hoffman teaches
further comprising: transmitting a token redemption notification via a user interface of the mobile electronic device of the user after the at least one streak token is redeemed and used to mend the driving streak of the user (4:15-22 explicitly states that credits/strikes can “disappear” when used which amounts to a token redemption notification after a streak token is redeemed and used to mend a streak, see also Figs 4-6 & 3:10-14 & 8:1-17 (driver program/application on their mobile device) & 10:50-55 & 11:60-64 & 16:30-34 which describes vehicle operators receiving various notifications and having user-interfaces generated on their mobile devices to communicate driving-related and challenge/streak related information – therefore even if not explicitly disclosed (which the Examiner maintains it is) it at least would have been obvious to substitute credit/strike redemption activity for the other driving-related and challenge/streak related information in the displayed notifications as this is driving-related and challenge/streak related information – Finally, Examiner notes that the Hsu-Hoffman discloses transmitting notifications via a user interface of the mobile electronic device of the user with driving-related and challenge/streak related information and that the description of the specific information being conveyed is non-functional descriptive material (i.e., directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product) and therefore merits no patentable weight)
With respect to claims 6 and 13, Hsu-Hoffman and Davis teach the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 8. Hsu-Hoffman teaches
further comprising: transmitting, via a user interface of the mobile electronic device of the user, a current count of streak tokens of the user (4:15-22 explicitly states that credits/strikes can “disappear” when used which amounts to transmitting a current count of streak tokens of the user, see also Figs 4-6 & 3:10-14 & 8:1-17 (driver program/application on their mobile device) & 10:50-55 & 11:60-64 & 16:30-34 which describes vehicle operators receiving various notifications and having user-interfaces generated on their mobile devices to communicate driving-related and challenge/streak related information – therefore even if not explicitly disclosed (which the Examiner maintains it is) it at least would have been obvious to try or substitute a current count of streak tokens of the user for the other driving-related and challenge/streak related information in the displayed notifications as this is also driving-related and challenge/streak related information - – Finally, Examiner notes that the Hsu-Hoffman discloses transmitting notifications via a user interface of the mobile electronic device of the user with driving-related and challenge/streak related information and that the description of the specific information being conveyed is non-functional descriptive material (i.e., directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product) and therefore merits no patentable weight)
With respect to claims 7, 13, and 20, Hsu-Hoffman teaches the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15;
further comprising: receiving at least one of the one or more streak tokens from the user to be provided to one or more other users (4:15-50 “if a driver needs a streak of ten drives beyond a threshold value to reach the next level, the driver may be given three credits which will forgive the driver for three drives that fail to reach the threshold value...rewards may be shared between users. For example, a driver may have a list of friends, and may be able to share their ratings, streaks, levels, and/or rewards between friends” – therefore Hsu-Hoffman suggests rewards (e.g., credits/strikes) may be shared with one or more other users and even if not explicitly called a “reward” (which Examiner maintains it is) it would have been obvious to substitute a credit/strike for another form of shareable reward)
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Warden et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2023/0316321, October 5, 2023) teaches receiving telematics data ([0040] & [0043]-[0045]) and analyzing the data to determine whether one or more driving requirements were met (e.g., events on a wish list of safe events) ([0017], [0051], [0055]) which can include one or more safe/unsafe behaviors ([0054]-[0055], [0005], [0046]) such as approved or unapproved phone usage ([0051]) and if so granting the driver with rewards ([0055]-[0056] & [0061]).
Tibbits et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2023/0042739, February 9, 2023) teaches receiving and analyzing telematics data to determine whether the driver exhibited one or more unsafe driving behaviors during a driving segment (which could be a trip per [0303], [0100]-[0102]) and wherein the one or more unsafe driving behaviors may include phone usage behavior ([0109], [0111], [0124], [0116], [0006]-[0007]) and providing driver rewards if no unsafe behavior was detected ([0098]-[0101]) including for streaks of segments with safe behavior ([0124], [0303]).
Russo et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2022/0012959, January 13, 2022) teaches analyzing telematics data and rewarding drivers for streaks of consecutive trips where the user exhibited safe driving behavior.
Purgatorio et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,885,539, January 5, 2021) teaches analyzing telematics data and rewarding drivers for streaks of consecutive trips where the user exhibited safe driving behavior.
Leung et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2022/0017101, January 20, 2022) teaches analyzing telematics data and rewarding drivers for streaks of consecutive trips where the user exhibited safe driving behavior.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DETWEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-4704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at telephone number (571)-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
