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 .
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 3, 4, 11, and 12 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.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 112(b) because the claims recite “the SS Copilot Application”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claims 4 and 12 do not clarify this issue and are rejected due to their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-13 are directed to a machine.
Independent Claim 1
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
A non-transitory computer medium having executable code stored thereon, that when executed, cause a data processing system to perform operations comprising:
receiving an activation trigger from a first user device associated with a user during a traffic stop;
responsive to the activation trigger, verifying the user's identity and current location;
prompting the user to notify emergency contacts and record the interaction;
receiving an activation of the notify emergency contacts and record the interaction prompt initiating an automatic message to be sent to contacts and recording to begin after giving a recording signal; and
receiving, by the user through the first user device, situation specific advice about user rights during the law enforcement encounter.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass managing personal behavior or interactions between people (i.e., following rules or instructions). These limitations encompass managing personal behavior or interactions between people because these limitations essentially encompass providing legal advice for a client (i.e., verifying the person and the jurisdiction, and providing relevant legal instructions). Claims that encompass managing personal behavior or interactions between people fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
A non-transitory computer medium having executable code stored thereon, that when executed, cause a data processing system to perform operations comprising:
receiving an activation trigger from a first user device associated with a user during a traffic stop;
responsive to the activation trigger, verifying the user's identity and current location;
prompting the user to notify emergency contacts and record the interaction;
receiving an activation of the notify emergency contacts and record the interaction prompt initiating an automatic message to be sent to contacts and recording to begin after giving a recording signal; and
receiving, by the user through the first user device, situation specific advice about user rights during the law enforcement encounter.
These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the non-transitory computer medium and the user device, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Second, the additional elements of receiving an activation trigger, prompting the user, receiving the activation, notifying contacts and recording the interaction, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving, displaying and sending data (i.e. receiving user input, displaying user interface elements, and recording and sending data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 9
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Independent claim 9 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
A non-transitory computer medium having executable code stored thereon, that when executed, cause a data processing system to perform operations comprising:
receiving an activation trigger from a first user device associated with a user during an accident;
responsive to the activation trigger, verifying the user's identity and current location;
prompting the user to notify emergency contacts;
receiving an activation of the notify emergency contacts prompt and initiating an automatic message to be sent to contacts;
receiving, by the user through the first user device, step-by-step guidance on next steps during the accident; and
prompting the user to fill out one or more accident documentation forms.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass managing personal behavior or interactions between people (i.e., following rules or instructions). These limitations encompass managing personal behavior or interactions between people because these limitations essentially encompass providing legal advice for a client (i.e., verifying the person and the jurisdiction, and providing relevant legal instructions). Claims that encompass managing personal behavior or interactions between people fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 9 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 9 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
A non-transitory computer medium having executable code stored thereon, that when executed, cause a data processing system to perform operations comprising:
receiving an activation trigger from a first user device associated with a user during an accident;
responsive to the activation trigger, verifying the user's identity and current location;
prompting the user to notify emergency contacts;
receiving an activation of the notify emergency contacts prompt and initiating an automatic message to be sent to contacts;
receiving, by the user through the first user device, step-by-step guidance on next steps during the accident; and
prompting the user to fill out one or more accident documentation forms.
These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the non-transitory computer medium and the user device, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Second, the additional elements of receiving an activation trigger, prompting the user to perform the various functions, receiving the activation, and notifying contacts, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving, displaying and sending data (i.e. receiving user input, displaying user interface elements, and sending data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). Claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Independent claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected under 101 as directed to an abstract idea for the following reasons.
Claims 2 and 10 recite the additional elements of sending messages to emergency contacts. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of sending data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claims 3 and 11 recite the additional elements of providing access to a virtual assistant. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., AI chatbots) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claims 4 and 12 recite the additional elements of receiving information about rights and advice. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of receiving data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of recording and storing the encounter. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of receiving and storing data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of exporting or deleting. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of sending or removing data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of using natural language processing. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., AI chatbots using natural language processing) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of searching for relevant information about user rights. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only using software to tailor information and provide it to a user, which is not more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (discussing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)).
Claims 13 recites the additional elements of prompting the user to complete forms in a current jurisdiction. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of displaying data (i.e., displaying prompts), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones US Pat. No. 9,699,401, herein referred to as “Jones” in view of Njie, US Pub. No. 2025/0014129, herein referred toa s “Njie”.
Regarding claim 1, Jones teaches:
receiving an activation trigger from a first user device associated with a user during a traffic stop (user launches the app, e.g., Col. 8, ll. 55-65, please note Examiner finds the limitation specifying the user activates the trigger “during a traffic stop” does not further limit the scope of the claim because it is only the intended use of the system, see MPEP 2103.I.C. That is, when the user chooses to activate the trigger is only the intended use of the system and Examiner does not find a patentable distinction between a user activating the trigger when they are at a traffic stop and when they are in a different situation);
responsive to the activation trigger, verifying the user's identity and current location (records time, date and location, and performs voice and facial recognition, Col. 2, ll. 42-60, Col. 8, ll. 55-6; see also Col. 6, ll. 41-46 discussing securing data with facial and voice recognition);
prompting the user to notify emergency contacts and record the interaction (provides panic button to send alert that notifies emergency contact, Col. 4, ll. 4-34, and records the encounter, Col. 4, ll. 27-50, Col. 5, ll. 23-40);
receiving an activation of the notify emergency contacts and record the interaction prompt initiating an automatic message to be sent to contacts and recording to begin after giving a recording signal (sends alert that notifies emergency contact, Col. 4, ll. 4-34, and records the encounter, Col. 4, ll. 27-50, Col. 5, ll. 23-40);
However Jones does not teach but Njie does teach:
A non-transitory computer medium having executable code stored thereon, that when executed, cause a data processing system to perform operations comprising (non-transitory computer readable medium and instructions, e.g., ¶¶[0113], [0124]):
and receiving, by the user through the first user device, situation specific advice about user rights during the law enforcement encounter (obtains jurisdiction-specific legal information, ¶[107] and provides jurisdiction-specific legal information, ¶¶[0059], [0110]; see also Fig. 7 summarizing process, and Fig. 4 showing interface).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system of Jones with the legal assistance of Njie because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users Jones would likely not only be interested in recording the encounter but would also be interested in legal advice and accordingly would have modified Jones to provide legal advice, e.g., as taught by Njie.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jones and Njie teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Jones further teaches:
initiating an automatic message sent to user's emergency contacts (sends alert that notifies emergency contact, Col. 4, ll. 4-34).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jones and Njie teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and Njie further teaches:
in real-time during the recording, providing real-time chat access, via typing or audio, to a virtual assistant through the SS Copilot Application during the law enforcement encounter (uses natural language processing, ¶[0040] to provide real-time direct communication, ¶[0042], when providing legal advice, ¶[0041]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system of Jones with the legal assistance of Njie because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users Jones would likely not only be interested in recording the encounter but would also be interested in legal advice and accordingly would have modified Jones to provide legal advice, e.g., as taught by Njie.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jones and Njie teaches all the limitations of claim 3 and Njie further teaches:
receiving, by the user through the first user device, information about rights from the virtual assistant during the law enforcement encounter (obtains jurisdiction-specific legal information, ¶[107] and provides jurisdiction-specific legal information, ¶¶[0059], [0110]; see also Fig. 7 summarizing process, and Fig. 4 showing interface).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system of Jones with the legal assistance of Njie because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users Jones would likely not only be interested in recording the encounter but would also be interested in legal advice and accordingly would have modified Jones to provide legal advice, e.g., as taught by Njie.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jones and Njie teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Jones further teaches:
creating and storing an audio-visual record of the law enforcement encounter (securely stores and processes real-time recordings, Col. 2, ll. 11-43, Col. 3, ll. 17-29).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jones and Njie teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Jones further teaches:
enabling user to export or delete the recording after the law enforcement encounter (captured data can be uploaded or streamed, Col. 2, ll. 11-43; see also Col. 6, ll. 26-40 discussing deletion process).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jones and Njie teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and Njie further teaches:
using natural language processing and natural language understanding to provide a response to user's inquiry (uses natural language processing, ¶[0040] to provide real-time direct communication, ¶[0042], when providing legal advice, ¶[0041]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system of Jones with the legal assistance of Njie because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users Jones would likely not only be interested in recording the encounter but would also be interested in legal advice and accordingly would have modified Jones to provide legal advice, e.g., as taught by Njie.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jones and Njie teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and Njie further teaches:
initiating a search for relevant information about user rights in a current jurisdiction associated with the law enforcement encounter to provide situation specific advice (searches for legal information for the pertinent jurisdiction, ¶¶[0045]-[0046]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system of Jones with the legal assistance of Njie because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users Jones would likely not only be interested in recording the encounter but would also be interested in legal advice and accordingly would have modified Jones to provide legal advice, e.g., as taught by Njie.
Regarding claim 9, Jones teaches:
receiving an activation trigger from a first user device associated with a user during an accident (user launches the app, e.g., Col. 8, ll. 55-65, please note Examiner finds the limitation specifying the user activates the trigger “during an accident” does not further limit the scope of the claim because it is only the intended use of the system, see MPEP 2103.I.C. That is, when the user chooses to activate the trigger is only the intended use of the system and Examiner does not find a patentable distinction between a user activating the trigger when they are in an accident and when they are in a different situation);
responsive to the activation trigger, verifying the user's identity and current location (records time, date and location, and performs voice and facial recognition, Col. 2, ll. 42-60, Col. 8, ll. 55-6; see also Col. 6, ll. 41-46 discussing securing data with facial and voice recognition);
prompting the user to notify emergency contacts (provides panic button to send alert that notifies emergency contact, Col. 4, ll. 4-34);
receiving an activation of the notify emergency contacts prompt and initiating an automatic message to be sent to contacts (sends alert that notifies emergency contact, Col. 4, ll. 4-34, and records the encounter, Col. 4, ll. 27-50, Col. 5, ll. 23-40);
and prompting the user to fill out one or more accident documentation forms (link is provided for filling complaint, Col. 9, ll. 9-20).
However Jones does not teach but Njie does teach:
A non-transitory computer medium having executable code stored thereon, that when executed, cause a data processing system to perform operations comprising (non-transitory computer readable medium and instructions, e.g., ¶¶[0113], [0124]):
receiving, by the user through the first user device, step-by-step guidance on next steps during the accident (obtains jurisdiction-specific legal information, ¶[107] and provides jurisdiction-specific legal information, ¶¶[0059], [0110]; see also Fig. 7 summarizing process, and Fig. 4 showing interface).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system of Jones with the legal assistance of Njie because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users Jones would likely not only be interested in recording the encounter but would also be interested in legal advice and accordingly would have modified Jones to provide legal advice, e.g., as taught by Njie.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jones and Njie teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and Jones further teaches:
initiating an automatic message sent to user's emergency contacts (sends alert that notifies emergency contact, Col. 4, ll. 4-34).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Jones and Njie teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and Njie further teaches:
providing real-time chat access, via typing or audio, to a virtual assistant through the SS Copilot Application during the accident (uses natural language processing, ¶[0040] to provide real-time direct communication, ¶[0042], when providing legal advice, ¶[0041]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system of Jones with the legal assistance of Njie because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users Jones would likely not only be interested in recording the encounter but would also be interested in legal advice and accordingly would have modified Jones to provide legal advice, e.g., as taught by Njie.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jones and Njie teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and Njie further teaches:
receiving, by the user through the first user device, step-by-step advice about next steps from the virtual assistant during the accident (obtains jurisdiction-specific legal information, ¶[107] and provides jurisdiction-specific legal information, ¶¶[0059], [0110]; see also Fig. 7 summarizing process, and Fig. 4 showing interface).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system of Jones with the legal assistance of Njie because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users Jones would likely not only be interested in recording the encounter but would also be interested in legal advice and accordingly would have modified Jones to provide legal advice, e.g., as taught by Njie.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Jones and Njie teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and Jones further teaches:
prompting the user to complete one or more accident specific forms in a current jurisdiction associated with the accident (link is provided for filling complaint, Col. 9, ll. 9-20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hedayati et al, US Pub. No. 2017/0200246 teaches a similar recording and reporting system
Glenn, US Pub. No. 202/20230260 teaches a similar recording and reporting system
ACLU "ACLU Launches Police Watch App in Oregon and Other States" Press Release, Nov. 6, 2014 teaches the “Mobile Justice” app which performs similar functions as the present invention
Messing, US Pub. No. 2015/0221052 teaches a machine learning based legal reasoning system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626