DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claims 1-7 recite “A computer-implemented method” in the preamble, line 1. The claims are not directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Rather, the claims are directed to signal per se. A review of the specification, in section 0145 teaches the computer implemented method may include instructions that may include code from computer programming languages. This would constitute a signal, per se, which is not eligible as a statutory category.
Claims 15-20 recite “a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions” in the preamble. A review of the specification, as sec[0145] teaches that the computer readable storage medium could include, but is not limited to, electronic, optical, magnetic, or any other storage or transmission device capable of providing the processor with program instructions. The instructions may include code from any suitable computer programming language.
This does not constituted eligible subject matter, because the specification does not rule out non-statutory sources as the memory.
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 1-7 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 1 recites the limitation "the one or more processors" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim line 3, the term “by” should be inserted in between the terms “detecting,” and “the”. 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 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); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,246,740 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
; are equivalent to the plurality of driving scenarios comprising a stop sign scenario and a traffic light scenario, and wherein calculating the driver score for the driver is based on at least a habitual driving behavior of the driver in the stop sign scenario and a habitual driving behavior of the driver in the traffic light scenario.
-- Claim 8 recites a system, which substantially corresponds to the method of claim 1, and therefore, is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
-- Claim 9 depends from claim 8, and recites a system that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 2 and 8 above.
-- Claim 10 depends from claim 8, and recites a system that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 3 and 8 above.
-- Claim 11 depends from claim 10, and recites a system that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 4 and 10 above.
-- Claim 12 depends from claim 10, and recites a system that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 5 and 10 above.
-- Claim 13 depends from claim 10, and recites a system that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 6 and 10 above.
-- Claim 14 depends from claim 10, and recites a system that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 7 and 10 above.
-- Claim 15 recites a computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, which substantially correspond to the method of claim 1, and therefore is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
-- Claim 16 depends from claim 15, and recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 2 and 15 above.
-- Claim 17 depends from claim 15, and recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 3 and 15 above.
-- Claim 18 depends from claim 17, and recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 4 and 17 above.
-- Claim 19 depends from claim 17, and recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 5. Therefore, claim 19 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 5 and 17 above.
-- Claim 20 depends from claim 17, and recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 7. Therefore, claim 20 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 7 and 17 above.
ART REJECTION:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Browne et al(USPGPUB 2013/0179198).
-- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Brown et al(Brown) includes
1) identifying, by the one or more processors, a habitual driving behavior of the driver in a monitored driving scenario based on a frequency of a behavior is met by the determination that the driver falls into a rating, which is an assessed risk level(see: Browne, secs[0005,0205]), which constitutes habitual driving behavior;
2) detecting, the one or more processors from sensor data captured by a vehicle operated by the driver, an occurrence of the identified habitual driving behavior is met by the environmental data applications which collect data from one or more sensors on the vehicle(12), and collect various environment data including various factors(see: Browne, sec[0084]);
3) determining, by the one or more processors, that a level of risk of the occurrence of the identified habitual driving behavior is lower than a threshold is met by the rating engine which uses data collected over time, so as to determine appropriate rating of the driver(see: Browne, secs[0205-0209]);
4) transmitting, by the one or more processors, a feedback alert to the driver in real-time on detection of the occurrence of the identified habitual driving behavior is met by the collected vehicle operation data being transmitted to remote processing computer, including feedback information(see: Browne, sec[0013, 0086]).
-- With regards to claim 2,
1) the monitored driving scenario is a stop sign scenario or a traffic light scenario, and the habitual driving behavior is non-compliant behavior; the monitored driving scenario is a following distance scenario, and the habitual driving behavior is following distance below a predetermined threshold and the monitored driving scenario is an open-road scenario, and the habitual driving behavior is speeding behavior are met by the data processing module(42), calculating driving behavior metrics, based on various driving scenarios, including traffic signs/light(e.g. stop signs, yield signs, traffic lights, etc)(see: Browne, sec[0080]).
-- With regards to claim 3,
1) calculating a driver score for the driver based on a set of driving events, wherein each driving event of the set of driving events was detected from sensor data captured while a vehicle was operated by the driver, wherein each driving event of the set of driving events is associated with a driving behavior in at least one driving scenario of a plurality of driving scenarios is met by data processing module(42) of driving analysis application(50)(see: Browne, sec[0058]), which utilizes data from data collection module(40) which collects data from various vehicle sensors(see: sec[0061]), and thereby calculates a driving score, based on a set of driving events based on real time analysis of data from the vehicle and severity of the notable driving events that are detected and collected(see: Browne, sec[0048])
2) assigning the driver to a category based on the driver score, wherein the category is one of a plurality of categories is met by the determination that the driver falls into a rating, which is an assessed risk level(see: Browne, sec[0005,0025]), which constitutes assignment into a driver category;
4) determining that a change in the frequency of the identified habitual driving behavior by the driver in the monitored driving scenario would result in reassignment of the driver to another category of the plurality of categories, wherein the monitored driving scenario is a driving scenario of the plurality of driving scenarios is met by the rating engine which uses data collected over time, so as to determine appropriate rating of the driver(see: Browne, secs[0205-0209]). Wherein the determination over time would inherently determine a contribution amount of the monitored driving scenario to the driver score, so as to determine an appropriate rating/risk level, when determining the insurance premium for each particular monitored driver, and the real time analysis and feedback would cause re-assignment into a different risk category
-- With regards to claim 4,
1) assigning the driver to the category further comprises determining that the driver score falls within a range associated with the category is met by the determination that the driver falls into a rating, which is an assessed risk level(see: Browne, sec[0005,0025]), which constitutes assignment into a driver category.
-- With regards to claims 5 and 6,
1) determining that the change in habitual driving behavior by the driver in the monitored driving scenario would result in reassignment of the driver to another category further comprises:
i) determining a contribution amount of the monitored driving scenario to the driver score
ii) determining that a change to the contribution amount of the monitored driving scenario would change the driver score to fall within a range of a second category of the plurality of categories
iii) determining that the change in the habitual driving behavior by the driver in the monitored driving scenario would result in reassignment of the driver to another category further comprises determining a frequency of the habitual driving behavior based on the set of driving events(claim 6) is met by the rating engine which uses data collected over time, so as to determine appropriate rating of the driver(see: Browne, secs[0205-0209]. Wherein the determination over time would inherently determine a contribution amount of the monitored driving scenario to the driver score, as to determine an appropriate rating/risk level, when determining the insurance premium for each particular monitored driver.
-- With regards to claim 7,
1) the plurality of categories each correspond to a respective likelihood that the driver will be in an accident based on historical data is met by the data processing module(42) of driving analysis application(50)(see: Browne, sec[0058]), utilizing data from data collection module(40) which collects data from various vehicle sensors(see: Sec[0061]), and thereby calculates a driving score, based on a set of driving events based on real time analysis of data from the vehicle and severity of the notable driving events that are detected and collected(see: Browne, sec[0048]).
-- Claim 8 recites a system, which substantially corresponds to the method of claim 1, and therefore, is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
-- Claim 9 depends from claim 8, and recites a system that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 2 and 8 above.
-- Claim 10 depends from claim 8, and recites a system that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 3 and 8 above.
-- Claim 11 depends from claim 10, and recites a system that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 4 and 10 above.
-- Claim 12 depends from claim 10, and recites a system that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 5 and 10 above.
-- Claim 13 depends from claim 10, and recites a system that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 6 and 10 above.
-- Claim 14 depends from claim 10, and recites a system that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 7 and 10 above.
-- Claim 15 recites a computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, which substantially correspond to the method of claim 1, and therefore is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
-- Claim 16 depends from claim 15, and recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 2 and 15 above.
-- Claim 17 depends from claim 15, and recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 3 and 15 above.
-- Claim 18 depends from claim 17, and recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 4 and 17 above.
-- Claim 19 depends from claim 17, and recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 5. Therefore, claim 19 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 5 and 17 above.
-- Claim 20 depends from claim 17, and recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 7. Therefore, claim 20 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 7 and 17 above.
sConclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights