The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-21 are pending and examined. Claims 2-21 are new. Claim 1 is cancelled.
Claim Objection
The following claims are objected to because of lack of proper antecedent basis: “the location” as recited in claims 5-8, 15-17 are objected to and should be corrected to “the physical location” as the respective independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12300114 (B1), claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11735039 (B1), claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10546491 (B1), claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10057312 (B1), and claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 9832241 (B1) since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: a method, apparatus, and system for receiving, at a processor, and from a first computing device, a first communication including telematics data associated with a first vehicle; determining, by the processor and based at least in part on the telematics data, a traffic condition associated with a physical location;
determining, by the processor, that a second vehicle is traveling along a route that includes the location; and transmitting, by the processor, and to a second computing device carried by the second vehicle, a second communication indicating the traffic condition, the second communication causing the second computing device to:
generate an executable instruction identifying an alternate travel route that avoids the traffic condition, and provide the executable instruction to a processor of the second vehicle, the executable instruction causing the processor of the second vehicle to modify operation of at least one component of the second vehicle based on the alternate travel route.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.1968).
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Analysis for independent claims 2, 13 and 19:
Independent claims 2, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims and the other claims recite a method for receiving a first plurality of wireless communications, determining a traffic condition, transmitting a second plurality of wireless communications, determining a traffic delay and current location, and providing a display, text or graphical description as recited in independent claims 2, 13 and 19. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by a processor”. That is, other than reciting “by a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
The claim recites additional elements of receiving a first communication, determining a traffic condition, determining a second vehicle traveling during a route, transmitting a second communication, generating an alternate travel route, providing instruction to modify operation of at least one component of a second vehicle. The receiving, determining, transmitting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the generating and providing instruction to modify operation steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating and providing instruction to modify operation (i.e. as a general means of using the result of the receiving, determining, transmitting steps), and amounts to mere post solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating and providing merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The providing is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the generating step.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No)
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving a first communication, determining a traffic condition, determining a second vehicle traveling during a route, transmitting a second communication, generating an alternate travel route, providing instruction to modify operation of at least one component of a second vehicle were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background discloses that using certain types of telematics data in vehicle is conventional ([0003]). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Analysis for Dependent Claims 3-12, 14-18, and 20-21:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 3-12, 14-18, and 20-21 are directed to statutory category. The same analysis of Step 1 for claims 2, 13 and 19 applies. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”.
Claims 3-12, 14-18, and 20-21 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claims 2, 13 and 19 applies. Claims 3-12, 14-18, and 20-21 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 3-12, 14-18, and 20-21 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong Two for claims 2, 13 and 19 applies. Claims 3-12, 14-18, and 20-21 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Claims 3-12, 14-18, and 20-21 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements in claims 3-12, 14-18, and 20-21 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two for claims 2, 13 and 19 applies (see independent and dependent claim analysis). Claims 3-12, 14-18, and 20-21 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Overall conclusion:
Dependent claims 3-12, 14-18, and 20-21 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is rejected because the feature there are two different processors as recited. It is unclear and indefinite which processor of the two different processors as to the dependent claims refer to. In claim 13, processor and on-board processor are recited that clear the confusion. Appropriate correction is needed.
Claim 9 is rejected because “high traffic volume” and “extreme weather condition” as recited is unclear and indefinite. What is the objective standard of “high” and “extreme”? These terms are deemed as relative terminology that one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand what is claimed, in light of the specification (MPEP 2173.05(b) Relative Terminology).
Claims 3-12 are further rejected based on dependency on base claim 2.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
12. 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.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Christensen et al., US 8935036 (B1), in view of Biemer, US 9940676 (B1).
As to claim 2, Christensen teaches a computer-implemented method of using telematics data to modify operation of a vehicle (“updated telematics data to associate certain driving tips with certain telematics data and identify effective driving tips and delivery techniques”, abs), comprising:
receiving, at a processor, and from a first computing device, a first communication including telematics data associated with a first vehicle (Figs. 1 and related text: “three vehicles 105, 106, 107 are depicted in FIG. 1, it should be appreciated that fewer or more vehicles are envisioned. According to embodiments, each of the vehicles 105, 106, 107 can be equipped with a respective computer device 108, 109, 111 capable of sensing, receiving, maintaining, or consolidating telematics data associated with the vehicles 105, 106, 107.”, C3L51-58);
determining, by the processor and based at least in part on the telematics data, a
traffic condition associated with a physical location (“vehicle location data (e.g., GPS data received from the computer device 108 of the vehicle 105) with severe weather data (e.g., weather data retrieved from the secondary data server 114) based on the vehicle location to identify the driving tip "severe weather alert in your area”, C5L13-18);
determining, by the processor, that a second vehicle is traveling along a route that includes the location (“each of the vehicles 105, 106, 107 can be equipped with a respective computer device 108, 109, 111 capable of sensing, receiving, maintaining, or consolidating telematics data associated with the vehicles 105, 106, 107. For example…trip-based data such as GPS location”, C3L51-65); and
transmitting, by the processor, and to a second computing device carried by the
second vehicle, a second communication indicating the traffic condition (“each of the vehicles 105, 106, 107 can be equipped with a respective computer device 108, 109, 111 capable of sensing, receiving, maintaining, or consolidating telematics data associated with the vehicles 105, 106, 107. For example…trip-based data such as GPS location”, C3L51-65; “vehicle location data (e.g., GPS data received from the computer device 108 of the vehicle 105) with severe weather data (e.g., weather data retrieved from the secondary data server 114) based on the vehicle location to identify the driving tip "severe weather alert in your area”, C5L13-18).
Christensen does not explicitly teach the second communication causing the second computing device to:
generate an executable instruction identifying an alternate travel route that
avoids the traffic condition, and
provide the executable instruction to a processor of the second vehicle, the
executable instruction causing the processor of the second vehicle to modify
operation of at least one component of the second vehicle based on the alternate
travel route.
However, Biemer teaches determining properties of vehicle insurance policies for vehicles that engage in autonomous driving with identification of route and location information to avoid external elements such as traffic and hazard interfaced with the autonomous driving function of autonomous vehicle using a driving analysis computer (Biemer: Fig. 2 and related text, C10L20-C11L24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the driving tip model as taught by Christensen to include communication causing a computing device to identify an alternate travel route that avoids the traffic condition, and modify operation of at least one component of the second vehicle based on the alternate travel route as taught by Biemer to reduce the risk of accidents (Christensen: C1L20).
As to claim 3, Christensen modified by Biemer teaches the method wherein:
the first computing device is carried by the first vehicle (Christensen: Fig. 1 and related text),
the processor is remote from the first computing device (server in Fig. 1), and
the first communication is included in a plurality of wireless communications
received, at the processor, at a pre-determined time interval from a mobile application running on the first computing device (Christensen: Fig. 1 and related text; “trip-based data such as GPS location, time of day, day of week”, C3L65).
As to claim 4, Christensen modified by Biemer teaches the method further comprising:
transmitting, by the processor, and to the first computing device, an adjustment to a value of a contract associated with the first vehicle (Biemer: “a ratio can be between a first mileage unit that indicates a total distance traveled by the vehicle when the vehicle was engaged in autonomous driving over the first period of time and a second mileage unit that indicates a total distance traveled by the vehicle over the first period of time. In such example, the ratio can indicate a percentage of the total distance traveled by the vehicle over the first period of time where the vehicle was engaged in autonomous driving. The ratio can be used to determine a property of a vehicle insurance policy. In an example, in step 304, where the property of the vehicle insurance policy is a premium, a first premium rate can be applied when the ratio is above a threshold value and a second premium rate can be applied when the ratio is below the threshold value. In an example, one or more premium rates can be applied on a per-mile basis”, C14L22-42),
wherein the adjustment is based at least in part on information included in the
plurality of wireless communications (Biemer: “a ratio can be between a first mileage unit that indicates a total distance traveled by the vehicle when the vehicle was engaged in autonomous driving over the first period of time and a second mileage unit that indicates a total distance traveled by the vehicle over the first period of time. In such example, the ratio can indicate a percentage of the total distance traveled by the vehicle over the first period of time where the vehicle was engaged in autonomous driving. The ratio can be used to determine a property of a vehicle insurance policy. In an example, in step 304, where the property of the vehicle insurance policy is a premium, a first premium rate can be applied when the ratio is above a threshold value and a second premium rate can be applied when the ratio is below the threshold value. In an example, one or more premium rates can be applied on a per-mile basis”, C14L22-42).
As to claim 5, Christensen modified by Biemer teaches the method wherein the second communication causes the second computing device to:
provide, on a display associated with the second vehicle, a graphical user interface (GUI) including a text or graphical indication of at least one of: the traffic condition, the location on a map, or the alternate travel route (Christensen: display in Fig. 3; “identify the driving tip "severe weather alert in your area, please proceed with caution.", C5L17-18).
As to claim 6, Christensen modified by Biemer teaches the method further comprising:
generating, by the processor and based on determining the traffic condition, an
alert (Christensen: Fig. 1 and related text; display in Fig. 3; “identify the driving tip "severe weather alert in your area, please proceed with caution.", C5L17-18); and
based on determining that the second vehicle is traveling along a route that
includes the location, transmitting, to the second computing device, the alert (Christensen: Fig. 1 and related text; display in Fig. 3; “identify the driving tip "severe weather alert in your area, please proceed with caution.", C5L17-18).
As to claim 7, Christensen modified by Biemer teaches the method further comprising:
determining, by the processor, one or more additional vehicles operating within a
threshold distance of the location (Christensen: Fig. 1 and related text; display in Fig. 3; “identify the driving tip "severe weather alert in your area, please proceed with caution.", C5L17-18); and
transmitting, to devices associated with the one or more additional vehicles, the
alert (Christensen: Fig. 1 and related text; display in Fig. 3; “identify the driving tip "severe weather alert in your area, please proceed with caution.", C5L17-18).
As to claim 8, Christensen modified by Biemer teaches the method wherein the alert comprises one or more of: an audible alert, a visual alert, first information indicating the traffic condition, or second information indicating the location (Christensen: Fig. 1 and related text; display in Fig. 3; “identify the driving tip "severe weather alert in your area, please proceed with caution.", C5L17-18).
As to claim 9, Christensen modified by Biemer teaches the method wherein the traffic condition indicates one or more of: high traffic volume, road congestion, road construction, or an extreme weather condition (Christensen: Fig. 1 and related text; display in Fig. 3; “identify the driving tip "severe weather alert in your area, please proceed with caution.", C5L17-18).
As to claim 10, Christensen modified by Biemer teaches the method wherein the telematics data:
is generated by one or more sensors associated with the first computing device (Christensen: “computer devices 108, 109, 111 can include sensors capable of detecting and storing one or more of the various types of telematics data. For example, the computer devices 108, 109, 111 may include an accelerometer capable of measuring the acceleration of the respective vehicles 105, 106, 107. In other embodiments, the computer devices 108, 109, 111 may interface with one or more sensors or a computer of the vehicles 105, 106, 107 to receive one or more various types of telematics data sensed or gathered by the sensors or the computer. In further embodiments, the computer devices 108, 109, 111 may connect with a secondary data server 114 to receive one or more of the various types of telematics or other secondary data. For example, the computer devices 108, 109, 111 may retrieve maps data, weather data, and/or other data from the secondary data server 114. It should be appreciated that the computer devices 108, 109, 111 can receive or gather telematics data via a combination of two or more of these embodiments.”, C4L7-24),
and
is indicative of one or more of: Global Positioning System (GPS) location, speed,
acceleration, gyroscope reading, compass heading, lane information, time, turning,
braking, battery level, or telephone usage, associated with the first vehicle (Christensen: “computer devices 108, 109, 111 can include sensors capable of detecting and storing one or more of the various types of telematics data. For example, the computer devices 108, 109, 111 may include an accelerometer capable of measuring the acceleration of the respective vehicles 105, 106, 107. In other embodiments, the computer devices 108, 109, 111 may interface with one or more sensors or a computer of the vehicles 105, 106, 107 to receive one or more various types of telematics data sensed or gathered by the sensors or the computer. In further embodiments, the computer devices 108, 109, 111 may connect with a secondary data server 114 to receive one or more of the various types of telematics or other secondary data. For example, the computer devices 108, 109, 111 may retrieve maps data, weather data, and/or other data from the secondary data server 114. It should be appreciated that the computer devices 108, 109, 111 can receive or gather telematics data via a combination of two or more of these embodiments.”, C4L7-24).
As to claim 11, Christensen modified by Biemer teaches the method further comprising:
determining, by the processor and based upon a presence of a wireless connection between the first computing device and a communication system associated with the first vehicle (Christensen: Fig. 1 and related text), that:
the first computing device is carried by the first vehicle (Christensen: Fig. 1 and related text),
the telematics data indicates operation of the first vehicle (Christensen: Fig. 1 and related text).
As to claim 12, Christensen modified by Biemer teaches the method further comprising:
determining, by the processor and based on the second vehicle enabling receipt of the traffic condition, a change in a value of a term of a contract associated with the
second vehicle (Biemer: Fig. 4 and related text; “other information may also be inputted into the autonomous driving rating factor calculator 402 for consideration in calculating a distance-based autonomous driving insurance rating factor or other autonomous driving insurance rating factor. For example, the congestion level (e.g., traffic) on a roadway, the weather conditions the roadway, historical occurrences of incidents (e.g., vehicular accidents) on the roadway, and other factors related to the environment/surroundings in which the vehicle is operated. For example, the autonomous driving insurance rating factor calculator 402 may adjust the factor based on the congestion level on the roadway being high. In one example, the autonomous driving insurance rating factor calculator 402 may determine a factor value which indicates elevated risk during rush hour traffic to encourage vehicles 402 equipped with an autonomous driving system to engage in autonomous driving. Congestion levels may be divided, in one example, into categories of high, medium, and low based on the whether the travel time through a particular roadway falls into the upper ⅓, middle ⅓, or lower ⅓ of possible travels times historically logged on that roadway. Likewise, weather conditions may play a role in determining risk level. For example, in a fog situation, the risk may be relatively higher for manual driving versus autonomous driving. In order to encourage the driver to engage in autonomous driving, the calculator may determine a factor which indicates elevated risk for manual driving and lower risk for autonomous driving. The driving analysis computing device can, for example, determine a deductible amount which is higher for manual driving in the fog than autonomous driving in the fog. The driving analysis computing device can notify the driver of the vehicle of the deductible amount and/or difference in deductible amount to encourage the driver to engage in autonomous driving. The notice can be delivered in real-time to, for example, a display system of the vehicle or user device, such as mobile phone of the driver”, C15L41-C16L10),
wherein the second computing device provides, via a display, an indication of the
change in the value of the term of the contract (Biemer: Fig. 4 and related text; “other information may also be inputted into the autonomous driving rating factor calculator 402 for consideration in calculating a distance-based autonomous driving insurance rating factor or other autonomous driving insurance rating factor. For example, the congestion level (e.g., traffic) on a roadway, the weather conditions the roadway, historical occurrences of incidents (e.g., vehicular accidents) on the roadway, and other factors related to the environment/surroundings in which the vehicle is operated. For example, the autonomous driving insurance rating factor calculator 402 may adjust the factor based on the congestion level on the roadway being high. In one example, the autonomous driving insurance rating factor calculator 402 may determine a factor value which indicates elevated risk during rush hour traffic to encourage vehicles 402 equipped with an autonomous driving system to engage in autonomous driving. Congestion levels may be divided, in one example, into categories of high, medium, and low based on the whether the travel time through a particular roadway falls into the upper ⅓, middle ⅓, or lower ⅓ of possible travels times historically logged on that roadway. Likewise, weather conditions may play a role in determining risk level. For example, in a fog situation, the risk may be relatively higher for manual driving versus autonomous driving. In order to encourage the driver to engage in autonomous driving, the calculator may determine a factor which indicates elevated risk for manual driving and lower risk for autonomous driving. The driving analysis computing device can, for example, determine a deductible amount which is higher for manual driving in the fog than autonomous driving in the fog. The driving analysis computing device can notify the driver of the vehicle of the deductible amount and/or difference in deductible amount to encourage the driver to engage in autonomous driving. The notice can be delivered in real-time to, for example, a display system of the vehicle or user device, such as mobile phone of the driver”, C15L41-C16L10).
As to claims 13, 15, 17 and 18, they are apparatus claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 2, 5, 8, and 12. As such, claims 13, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for respective claims 2, 5, 8, and 12 and are incorporated herein (see claim 2 above for rationale, motivation, and reasons to combine).
As to claim 14, Christensen modified by Biemer teaches the system wherein the executable instruction causes the on-board processor to control at least one of:
a braking controller or a transmission controller to modify a speed of the second
vehicle as the second vehicle traverses the alternate travel route (Biemer: “in autonomous driving, a vehicle control computer 217, 227 may be configured to operate all or some aspects of the vehicle driving, including but not limited to acceleration, braking, steering, and/or route navigation”, C8L65-C9L1), or
a driving control system of the second vehicle to steer the second vehicle while
the second vehicle traverses the alternate travel route (Biemer: “in autonomous driving, a vehicle control computer 217, 227 may be configured to operate all or some aspects of the vehicle driving, including but not limited to acceleration, braking, steering, and/or route navigation”, C8L65-C9L1).
As to claim 16, it is an apparatus claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the combined method claims 6 and 7. As such, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for combined claims 6 and 7 and are incorporated herein (see claim 2 above for rationale, motivation, and reasons to combine).
As to claims 19, 20, and 21, they are manufacture claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 2, 3, and 4. As such, claims 19, 20, and 21 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for respective claims 2, 3, and 4 and are incorporated herein (see claim 2 above for rationale, motivation, and reasons to combine).
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi, can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Yuen Wong/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights