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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 24, 2026 cancelled claims 4-5. Claims 1-3 and 6-15 were amended and no new claims were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 1-3 and 6-15.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Prior to the instant amendment, claims 1-3, 6-9, and 12-15, recited the phrase “processing means (12, 20)” which limited the processing means to either control unit 12 of the vehicle or control station 20. Thus, the processing means was limited to one single structure, said structure being either control unit 12 or control station 20. However, the instant amendment has broadened the recitation of said “processing means” by removing “(12, 20)” from the claims. Based on the “processing means” as currently claimed the processing means could include control unit 12 of the vehicle, control station 20, or a combination of the control unit 12 and the control station 20. Since, it is no longer possible, given the claims as currently amended, to determine the exact structure which is expected to perform the claimed functional limitations, the phrase “processing means” as currently recited invokes 112f.
Likewise, prior to the instant amendment, claims 10-11, recited the phrase the “control unit (12)”. However, the control unit is no longer limited to control unit (12) and is instead just a “control unit”. Based on the applicant’s specification control unit 12 is configured to control the vehicle 10 such as a vehicle control unit of per se known type. However, as currently claimed the control unit is not required to control the vehicle. Instead, it is broad enough to be any computing device or any software executing on any computing device within the vehicle. Thus, phrase “control unit” as currently recited in the claims invokes 112f.
Finally, the “sensor means” of claims 1-3, and 6-15 is no longer required to be sensor means (16) which is couple to control unit 12. As such, it is no longer possible to be able to determine the intended structure of the sensor means. Should the processing means of claims 1, 12, and 15 be the control station, then the sensor mean may be interpreted as control unit 12 or the communication module of control unit 12 as it appears to be the only means of the vehicle in the applicant’s specification which is able to communicate directly with the control station. Likewise, if the control unit of claim 10 be any computer such as a navigation computer installed within the vehicle, then the sensor means could be a GPS transceiver of the navigation computer rather than a sensor means of the vehicle which is communicatively coupled to a control unit that controls the vehicle. Thus, phrase “sensor means”, as currently recited in the claims, invokes 112f.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
One or more target wallets, vehicle producers wallet of a producer of the vehicle, drivers wallet, fleet owner’s wallet in claim 1-3, and 6-15. These terms, as currently amended, no longer need to be wallets (30 or 40) or a vehicle producers wallet of a producer of the vehicle (10). According to the applicant’s disclosure wallets can be devices or software executing on devices. Wallets 30 and/or 40 were wallets of the driver and/or fleet owner which means they were either different devices or software executing on different devices than the processing means (12, 20). The same is true for vehicle producers wallet of a producer of the vehicle (10). However, as currently claimed it is impossible to tell whether these wallets are associated with additional devices and/or software executing on different devices than the claimed processing means and computer program product of claims 1 and 15, and/or vehicle of claim 12. It is also impossible to tell whether the system of claim 12 is intending for these to be another device or software executing on an additional device. For each of the claims, the wallets as currently claimed could be software executing on the control unit and/or the processing means, rather than a different device from devices 12 and/or 20 as previously required by the claims. As such, it is impossible to determine the intended structure associated with the claimed wallets. Thus, the wallets, as currently recited in the claims, invokes 112f.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment filed on April 24 overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claim 14. Thus, the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 12, and 15 have been amended such that the “processing mean” is no longer required to be either the control unit (12) of the vehicle or the control station (20) of the server external to the vehicle. As such, the processing means is interpreted broadly enough to encompass the processor of the control unit of the vehicle performing the claimed steps, the processor of the control station server performing the claimed steps, or a combination of the control unit of the vehicle and the processor of the control station server performing the claimed steps.
In regards to claim 1, the applicant’s disclosure does not have support for the processor of the control station server performing the step of acquiring driving data indicative of the functioning of the vehicle, where the step of acquiring the driving data comprises acquiring the driving data from sensor means of the vehicle. According to the applicant’s disclosure, the only device capable of acquiring this driving data from the sensor means of the vehicle is the control unit of the vehicle. As such, the claims as currently amended are broad enough to encompass an invention for which there is no support in the applicant’s specification. Therefore, claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
In regards to claim 12, the system comprises a vehicle with a sensor means; a processing means; and one or more target wallets operatively coupled to each other. There is no indication in the claim that the processing means or wallet is part of the vehicle of a control unit of the vehicle. According to the applicant’s disclosure, the only device capable of acquiring this driving data from the sensor means of the vehicle is the control unit of the vehicle. As such, the claims as currently amended are broad enough to encompass an invention for which there is no support in the applicant’s specification. Therefore, claim 12 fails to comply with the written description requirement. Likewise, the applicant’s specification does not disclose a control unit of a vehicle determining driving scores for other vehicles in a fleet of vehicles, nor associating a respective number of tokens based on the fuel consumption of multiple vehicles, nor assigning at least one amount of tokens to multiple target wallets based on the associated number of such tokens. While, the applicant’s specification indicates that the control unit of the vehicle can acquire driving data for itself, determine a driving score for itself, associate this driving score with a respective number of tokens and assign these tokens to one or more target wall, it is not disclosed that it can do such steps for other vehicles. Therefore, claim 12 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
In regards to claim 15, the applicant’s specification does not support a single computer program product storable in both a control unit of the vehicle and a control station server, the computer program product being executable by two different computers (i.e., both the control unit of the vehicle and a control station server) to perform the steps of claim 1. Instead, it appears that the single computer program product would only be supported by the applicant’s specification if the processing means was required to be the control unit of the vehicle. Since the interpretation of processing means is now broad enough to encompass a processor of the control unit and a processor of the control station, the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-9 and 13-14 fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 10 is a claim to a vehicle comprising “sensor means” and a “control unit”, wherein the control unit performs the claimed steps. However, this control unit is interpreted broad enough to encompass a vehicle comprising any computer performing the claimed steps, and the applicant’s specification does not have support for this broad interpretation. According to the applicant’s disclosure the control unit must be a computer that controls the vehicle itself such as a VCU of per se known type if it is to perform the claimed steps. Likewise, the “sensor means” as currently claimed is broad enough to be a GPS transceiver of the control unit, rather than a “sensor means” of the vehicle that is communicatively couple to the control unit. However, the applicant’s specification does not support such a broad interpretation of “sensor means”. According to the applicant’s specification the “sensor means” must of the vehicle and communicatively coupled to the control unit that controls the vehicle. As such, it is clear that claim 10 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Dependent claim 11 fail to correct the deficiencies of the claim from which it depends and, as such, is rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 1-3, 6-9 and 12-15 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.
Independent claims 1, 12, and 15 have been amended such that the “processing mean” is no longer required to be either the control unit (12) of the vehicle or the control station (20) of the server external to the vehicle. As currently claimed, the “processing means”, if the examiner were to read limitations into the claims, to require that the “processing means” be either the control unit or the control unit and the control station the claims would be indefinite. Based on the applicant’s specification on page 11, lines 20-32 the “processing means” may comprise the control unit of the vehicle performing the steps of S01, S02, S03, S04, and the additional step (i.e., receiving, by the vehicle producer, through the blockchain and from the target wallet (upon consensus of the target entity), a predetermined token quantity that corresponds to the payment for the reward to be provided to the target entity; and providing the respective reward to the target entity (e.g., sends the gadget to the driver). Alternatively, the “processing means” may comprise the control unit of the vehicle performing step S01, and the control station server performing the steps of S02, S03, S04, and the additional step. In another embodiment, the processing unit comprises both the control unit of the vehicle and the control station server where any one or more of steps S02, S03, S04, and the alternative. This last embodiment results in there being 6 additional different inventions based on which device is expected to perform each step. Each of the 8 possible embodiments result in an invention of different scope. In each of the 8 inventions, the functions performed by the control unit and the functions performed by the control station are different. This results in there being 8 different possible inventions, each invention with different scope. As currently claimed, it is impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the exact metes and bounds of invention being claimed. Therefore, claims 1, 12, and 15 are clearly indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-9, and 13-14 fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 1-3, 6-9 and 15 are directed to a method and a computer program product which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1-3, 6-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1 and 15 recite(s) the following abstract idea: (Examiner note: The sensor means and the vehicle have been included as part of the abstract idea itself because they are outside the scope of the claimed invention and, as such, cannot be considered an “additional element” of the claimed invention.)
acquiring, from sensor means of a vehicle, driving data indicative of the functioning of the vehicle;
determining, based on the driving data, a driving score indicative of a degree of fuel consumption for operating the vehicle by the driver, wherein the driving score is inversely proportional to the degree of fuel consumption of the vehicle;
associating to the driving score a respective token number indicative of an amount of tokens that depends on said degree of fuel consumption of the vehicle; and
assigning, through blockchain, the amount of tokens to one or more target wallets, the one or more target wallets being a driver's wallet of the driver and/or a fleet owner's wallet of a vehicle fleet owner owning the vehicle.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a computer with a processor and memory (e.g. general-purpose computer).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
acquiring, from sensor means of a vehicle driving data indicative of the functioning of the vehicle (receiving data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer with a processor and memory (e.g. general-purpose computer). to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general-purpose computer (page 3 lines 12-13 and page 8, lines 10-11 of the applicant’s specification); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
acquiring, from sensor means of a vehicle driving data indicative of the functioning of the vehicle (receiving data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claims 2-3 and 6-9 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the assigning of the tokens which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 2-3); further limiting the associating the step which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 6); adding an additional step of transferring a predetermined token quantity which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 7); further limiting the reward which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 8), and further limiting the blockchain which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 9), and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-3, 6-9 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Claims 10-11 are directed to an apparatus which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 10-11 recite(s) the following abstract idea:
acquiring driving data indicative of the functioning of a vehicle;
determining, based on the driving data, a driving score indicative of a degree of fuel consumption for operating the vehicle by the driver, wherein the driving score is inversely proportional to the degree of fuel consumption of the vehicle;
associating to the driving score a respective token number indicative of an amount of tokens that depends on said degree of fuel consumption of the vehicle; and
assigning, through blockchain, the amount of tokens to one or more target wallets, the one or more target wallets being a driver's wallet of the driver and/or a fleet owner's wallet of a vehicle fleet owner owning the vehicle.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a vehicle, such as a work vehicle or heavy vehicle, comprising a vehicle control unit and sensor means (e.g. a vehicle with a general-purpose computer and generic vehicle components (i.e., sensor means)).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
acquiring driving data indicative of the functioning of a vehicle (receiving data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a vehicle with a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying, and generic vehicle components) such that it amounts to no more than using a vehicle with a computer and a sensor as a tool to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a vehicle with a computer and a sensor, or merely uses a vehicle with a computer and a sensor as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a vehicle, such as a work vehicle or heavy vehicle, comprising a vehicle control unit and sensor means (i.e., a vehicle with a general-purpose computer and a generic vehicle component). to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a tool (e.g., a vehicle comprising a vehicle control unit and sensor means (i.e., a vehicle with a general-purpose computer and a generic vehicle component).
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general-purpose computer (Pages 1, lines 13-16, page 3 lines 12-13 and page 8, lines 10-11 of the applicant’s specification which discloses that the vehicle with a control unit was known, wherein the vehicle includes at least a heavy vehicle and page 3, line 33 through page 4, line 10 which discloses that the sensor could be a sensor that measures the traveling speed of the vehicle (e.g., speedometer) or a sensor that measure the temperature of the vehicle (e.g., thermometer) which are standard vehicle sensors, as well as the fact that the applicant’s specification makes no mention of any type of specific “sensor” much less some type of new applicant invented sensor); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
acquiring driving data indicative of the functioning of a vehicle (receiving data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 10-11 are not patent eligible.
Claims 12-14 are directed to a system which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 12-14 recite(s) the following abstract idea:
acquire driving data indicative of the functioning of each of at least one vehicle;
determine, for each of the at least one vehicle and based on the driving data, at least one driving score indicative of a respective degree of fuel consumption for operating the at least one vehicle by the at least one driver respectively, wherein the driving score is inversely proportional to the degree of fuel consumption of the vehicle;
associate to the at least one driving score, for each of the at least one vehicle, a respective token number indicative of a respective amount of tokens that depends on said degree of fuel consumption of the at least one vehicle respectively; and
assign, through blockchain, the at least one amount of tokens to one or more target wallets, the one or more target wallets being a respective driver's wallet of each of the at least one driver and/or a fleet owner's wallet of a vehicle fleet owner.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of one or more vehicles with a sensor (i.e., a vehicle with a generic vehicle component), and a server (i.e. a processing means) capable of communicating over a network.
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
acquiring driving data indicative of the functioning of each of the at least one vehicle (receiving data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as one or more vehicles with a sensor and a server performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than using one or more vehicles with a sensor, a server, and a network as a tool to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more vehicles with a sensor, a server, and a network, or merely uses one or more vehicles with a sensor and a server communicating over a network as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using one or more vehicles with a sensor and a server (i.e. processing means) capable of communicating over a network to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a tool (e.g., a vehicle comprising a vehicle control unit (e.g. a vehicle with a general-purpose computer).
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general-purpose computer (Pages 1, lines 13-16, page 3 lines 12-13 and page 8, lines 10-11 of the applicant’s specification which discloses that the vehicle with a control unit was known, wherein the vehicle includes at least a heavy vehicle and page 3, line 33 through page 4, line 10 which discloses that the sensor could be a sensor that measures the traveling speed of the vehicle (e.g., speedometer) or a sensor that measure the temperature of the vehicle (e.g., thermometer) which are standard vehicle sensors, as well as the fact that the applicant’s specification makes no mention of any type of specific “sensor” much less some type of new applicant invented sensor; as well as the Affinity v DirecTV decision which discloses that a network is a generic computer component); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
acquiring driving data indicative of the functioning of each of the at least one vehicle (receiving data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 12-14 are not patent eligible.
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) 1-3, 10-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gostoli et al. (PGPUB: 2014/0188379) in view of Miller et al. (PGPUB: 2020/0074853).
Claims 1, 10, 12, and 15: A system, a vehicle, a method and a computer program product for reduction of fuel consumption of a vehicle operable by a driver, comprising:
one or more vehicles operable by a driver comprising sensor means with processing means comprising a control unit; and a control station (i.e., server) communicatively coupled (Paragraphs 21, 26, and 127: vehicle with a data processing device (e.g., processing means comprising a control unit) interfacing with datalogger to obtain data from a plurality of sensors; Paragraph 25: a data processing server in communication with the control unit) performing the steps of:
measuring, by the sensor means, driving data indicative of the functioning of the vehicle; acquiring the driving data, from the sensor means of the vehicle, indicative of the functioning of the one or more vehicles (Paragraph 44: the data processing device and the data processing server are designed to store and execute driving style evaluation software, and comprise a section dedicated to the correct reading of mission data, respectively recorded in the data logger and received via radio from the radio receiver device , and a section dedicated to its processing to analyze, for each motor vehicle, the mission of the motor vehicle and evaluate the driving style of the motor vehicle driver; Paragraph 26-42: the data logger is configured to acquire and record the following mission data of the motor vehicle from the CAN network: speed, fuel consumption, gear engaged, speed of front left and right-hand wheels, activation of the basic brake, constituted by ordinary disc brakes, front and rear, controlled by the brake pedal, activation of auxiliary braking devices, constituted by the engine brake and the retarder, activation of windscreen wipers, external air temperature, position of the accelerator pedal, gear engaged, engine friction torque, engine torque, position of the retarder lever, activation of the cruise control, mass of the motor vehicle, number of satellites connected to the satellite Global Positioning System (GPS), Vertical Dilution of Points, Horizontal Dilution of Points, Latitude and Longitude; Paragraphs 50-59: For both the on-board application and the off-board one, the driving style evaluation software needs to receive the following engine and motor vehicle data: engine fuel map, engine friction map, engine idle speed and related fuel consumption, engine over-revving speed, engine, Gearbox, Driveline and Wheels Inertia, coast down, gear ratios and efficiency, tire sizes, motor Vehicle Track);
determining, based on the driving data, a driving score indicative of a degree of fuel consumption for operating the one or more vehicles by the driver, wherein the driving score is inversely proportional to the degree of fuel consumption of the vehicle (Paragraphs 60-68: the driving style evaluation software determines a driving style evaluation index for each driver which can be determined with respect to a fuel savings perspective using a determined fuel economy index; the driving style evaluation index is computed as a linear combination of indexes computed from the fuel savings perspective, thus the higher the fuel consumption the lower the index, and the lower the fuel consumption the higher the index which means the driving style evaluation index is inversely proportional to the degree of fuel consumption);
Gostoli discloses providing summaries of the fuel saving aimed evaluations but does not disclose providing rewards based on the evaluations. Thus, Gostoli does not disclose:
associating to the driving score a respective token number indicative of an amount of tokens that depends on said degree of fuel consumption of the one or more vehicles; and assigning, through blockchain, the amount of tokens to one or more target wallets, the one or more target wallets being a driver's wallet of the driver of the one or more vehicles and/or a fleet owner's wallet of a vehicle fleet owner owning the one or more vehicle.
However, the analogous art of Miller discloses that it is known to associate a driving score to a respective token number indicative of an amount of tokens; and assign, through blockchain, the amount of tokens to one or more target wallets, the one or more target wallets being a driver's wallet of the driver of the one or more vehicles and/or a fleet owner's wallet of a vehicle fleet owner owning the one or more vehicle in at least paragraphs 204-211, 215-222, and 257.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Gostoli to associate a driving score to a respective token number indicative of an amount of tokens; and assign, through blockchain, the amount of tokens to one or more target wallets, the one or more target wallets being a driver's wallet of the driver of the one or more vehicles and/or a fleet owner's wallet of a vehicle fleet owner as disclosed by Miller.
The rationale for doing so is that it merely requires combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It can be seen that each element claimed is taught in either Gostoli or Miller. Providing rewards to user based on a driving score in the manner taught by Miller does not change nor effect the normal functions of determining a driving score as taught by Gostoli. The gathering of driving data and determining of the driving score would be performed in the same way even with the addition of rewarding drivers based on the driving score. Since the functionalities of the elements in Gostoli and Miller do not interfere with each other the results of the combination would be predictable.
Claim 2: Gostoli and Miller disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of assigning the amount of tokens comprises adding in the blockchain a block comprising a smart contract registering the transfer of the amount of tokens from a vehicle producer's wallet of a producer of the vehicle to the one or more target wallets. (Miller - Paragraphs 204-211, 215-226, and 257: the CRSS may deploy an incentive smart contract which includes instructions for transferring cryptographic tokens from one wallet address to another wallet address, wherein the transfer of tokens includes storing them in distributed ledger in association with smart contract of blockchain)
Claim 3: Gostoli and Miller disclose the method according to claim 2, wherein the transfer of the amount of tokens comprises one of the following: the transfer of the amount of tokens entirely to the driver's wallet; the transfer of the amount of tokens entirely to the fleet owner's wallet; the transfer of the amount of tokens partially to the driver's wallet and partially to the fleet owner's wallet. (Miller - Paragraphs 204-211, 215-226, and 257: the tokens are transferred to a wallet of the driver or other incentivized user)
Claim 11: Gostoli and Miller disclose the vehicle according to claim 10, the vehicle being a work vehicle or a heavy vehicle. (Gostoli - Paragraphs 1 and 207: a road vehicle used for transporting people, such as a passenger car, a bus, a camper, etc., or goods, such as an industrial vehicle (lorry, articulated lorry, articulated vehicle, etc.) or a light or medium weight commercial vehicle (van, van with covered body, cab truck, etc.) or a medium to heavy commercial vehicle, aimed in general at an energy-efficient use of fuel and, in particular, at fuel saving)
Claim 13: Gostoli and Miller disclose the system according to claim 12, wherein the control station is configured to implement said blockchain. (Miller – 206-207: the collaborative road user safety computer issues specialized cryptographic tokens that are representative of the inventive value being transferred on the CRSS and the distributed application of which it is a part, and issues smart contracts associated with said tokens and manages the tokens based on a state database that tracks who owns how many tokens)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gostoli et al. (PGPUB: 2014/0188379) in view of Miller et al. (PGPUB: 2020/0074853) in further view of Doris-Down (PGPUB 2014/0143073).
Claim 6: The method according to claim 1, wherein the step of associating the token number to the driving score comprises using a look-up table associating to each driving score a respective token number or associating to each range of driving scores a respective range of token numbers.
Gostoli and Miller disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of associating the token number to the driving score comprises using the driving score and an exchange rate in at least paragraphs 218 and 226 of Miller.
Gostoli and Miller do not specifically state that a look-up table is used.
However, the analogous art of Doris-Down discloses it is known to use a look-up table of exchange rates for determining conversion rates in at least paragraph 77.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Gostoli and Miller to include a look-up table for exchange rate conversion as disclosed by Houser.
The rationale for doing so is that it would be obvious to try. There are a limited number of predictable ways in which the quantity of tokens can be determined based on an exchange rate, and using a look-up table to obtain the exchange rate is one such predictable way.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gostoli et al. (PGPUB: 2014/0188379) in view of Miller et al. (PGPUB: 2020/0074853) in further view of Georgi (US Patent 10,157,400).
Claim 7: The method according to claim 2, further comprising the step of transferring, through the blockchain, a predetermined token quantity from one of the one or more target wallets to the vehicle producer's wallet in exchange for providing, by the producer of the vehicle, a reward to the driver and/or to the vehicle fleet owner.
Gostoli and Miller disclose the method according to claim 2, further comprising the step of transferring, through the blockchain, a predetermined token quantity from one of the one or more target wallets to an incentive provider wallet in exchange for providing a reward to the driver and/or to the vehicle fleet owner in at least paragraphs 204-211, 215-225, and 257 of Miller.
Gostoli and Miller do not disclose that the incentive provider is a manufacturer of the vehicle and that the rewards are product and/or services of said provider.
However, the analogous art of Georgi discloses that it is known to pay a reward free reimbursement rate to a manufacture in the automotive or transportation industry for providing rewards to a user, wherein the rewards are a good or service associated with the provider in at least column 8, lines 35-64, column 9, lines 17-24, column 18, lines 40-63, and column 30, line 55 through column 31, line 28.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Gostoli and Miller to include transferring a predetermined token quantity to an incentive provider that is a manufacturer of the vehicle, wherein the rewards are a good or service associated with the provider as disclosed by Georgi.
The rationale for doing so is that it merely requires combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It can be seen that each element claimed is taught in either Gostoli and Miller, as combined, or Georgi. Having the reward provider be a manufacturer of the vehicle providing rewards associated with the provider as disclosed by Georgi does not change nor effect the normal functions of transferring tokens to or from reward provider wallets as taught by Gostoli and Miller, as it merely affects the type of business the reward provider is in and the type of rewards that are provided. Since the functionalities of the elements in Gostoli and Miller, as combined, and Houser do not interfere with each other the results of the combination would be predictable.
Claim 8: Gostoli and Miller disclose the method according to claim 7, wherein the reward is at least one of the following: one or more gadgets; a discount on the purchase of one or more further vehicles; a discount on one or more services related to the vehicle; one or more additional services related to the vehicle. (Georgi - column 18, lines 40-63)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gostoli et al. (PGPUB: 2014/0188379) in view of Miller et al. (PGPUB: 2020/0074853) in further view of Houser (Cars on the Blockchain? Six Ways Automakers Could Employ the New Technology, 2018, https://kristinhouserwriter.com/2018/05/20/cars-on-the-blockchain-six-ways-automakers-could-employ-the-new-technology/, pages 1-6).
Claim 9: The method according to claim 2, wherein the blockchain is owned by the producer of the vehicle.
Gostoli and Miller disclose the method according to claim 2 as cited above.
Gostoli and Miller do not disclose that the producer of the vehicle owns the blockchain.
However, the analogous art of Houser disclose that it is known for a producer of a vehicle to own the blockchain used for rewarding users based on their driving in at least page 4, lines 14-33.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Gostoli and Miller to include a blockchain owned by the producer of the vehicle as disclosed by Houser.
The rationale for doing so is that it merely requires combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It can be seen that each element claimed is taught in either Gostoli and Miller, as combined, or Houser. Having the blockchain owned by the producer of the vehicle as disclosed by Houser does not change nor effect the normal functions of the blockchain technology as taught by Gostoli and Miller, as it merely affects the ownership of the blockchain. Since the functionalities of the elements in Gostoli and Miller, as combined, and Houser do not interfere with each other the results of the combination would be predictable.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gostoli et al. (PGPUB: 2014/0188379) in view of Miller et al. (PGPUB: 2020/0074853) in further view of Basir (PGPUB: 2015/0081404).
Claim 14: The system according to claim 12, wherein, when the at least one vehicle includes a plurality of vehicles and at least one driver includes a plurality of said drivers, the vehicles form a vehicle fleet,
Gostoli and Miller disclose a first plurality of said vehicles operable by a second plurality of said drivers in at least paragraphs 1-2, 19, and 207 of Gostoli.
Gostoli and Miller do not specifically state the vehicles form a fleet.
However, the analogous art of Basir discloses it is known for a fleet of vehicles to participate in a reward program that rewards drivers for their driving behavior in at least in at least paragraphs 3, 18 and 52.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Gostoli and Miller to include fleet vehicles as disclosed by Basir.
The rationale for doing so is that it would be obvious to try. There are a limited number of predictable types of ownership of the buses, industrial vehicles, and commercial vehicles subscribed to the system disclosed in paragraphs 1-2, 19, and 207 of Gostoli, and such vehicles being part of a fleet is one predictable type of ownership of such vehicles.
the processing means being configured to:
acquire said driving data from each vehicle (Gostoli - Paragraph 44: the data processing device and the data processing server are designed to store and execute driving style evaluation software, and comprise a section dedicated to the correct reading of mission data, respectively recorded in the data logger and received via radio from the radio receiver device , and a section dedicated to its processing to analyze, for each motor vehicle, the mission of the motor vehicle and evaluate the driving style of the motor vehicle driver; Paragraph 26-42: the data logger is configured to acquire and record the following mission data of the motor vehicle from the CAN network: speed, fuel consumption, gear engaged, speed of front left and right-hand wheels, activation of the basic brake, constituted by ordinary disc brakes, front and rear, controlled by the brake pedal, activation of auxiliary braking devices, constituted by the engine brake and the retarder, activation of windscreen wipers, external air temperature, position of the accelerator pedal, gear engaged, engine friction torque, engine torque, position of the retarder lever, activation of the cruise control, mass of the motor vehicle, number of satellites connected to the satellite Global Positioning System (GPS), Vertical Dilution of Points, Horizontal Dilution of Points, Latitude and Longitude; Paragraphs 50-59: For both the on-board application and the off-board one, the driving style evaluation software needs to receive the following engine and motor vehicle data: engine fuel map, engine friction map, engine idle speed and related fuel consumption, engine over-revving speed, engine, Gearbox, Driveline and Wheels Inertia, coast down, gear ratios and efficiency, tire sizes, motor Vehicle Track);
determine, for each vehicle and based on the respective driving data, the respective driving score indicative of the respective degree of fuel consumption for operating said vehicle by the respective driver (Gostoli - Paragraphs 60-68: the driving style evaluation software determines a driving style evaluation index for each driver which can be determined with respect to a fuel savings perspective using a determined fuel economy index);
associate to each driving score the respective token number (Miller - Paragraphs 204-211, 215-225, and 257); and
assign, through blockchain, each amount of tokens to the respective one or more target wallets. (Miller - Paragraphs 204-211, 215-225, and 257)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. (Examiner’s note: the applicant’s arguments with regards to Step 2a are based on the Alice/Mayo framework. The USPTO does not actually use the Alice/Mayo framework when analyzing claims under 101. Instead, Step 2a of Alice is broken down in to Step 2a, Prong 1 and Step 2a, Prong 2. Thus, the examiner’s response is based on the framework required by MPEP 2106. Irrespective, the results under both frameworks would be the same.)
The applicant asserts that the clams, as currently amended, do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 1 because as amended they are directed to a specific technical method for improving the physical operation of a vehicle to solve the technical problem of excessive fuel consumption. The examiner strongly disagrees. The analysis under Step 2a, Prong 1 requires determining whether or not any of the limitations of the claim recite an abstract idea. In the instant case the claims clearly recite the identified abstract idea outlined in the rejection above. Whether or not an improvement rooted in the additional elements of the claim transforms the abstract idea into a practical application is only evaluated under Step 2a, Prong 2. Additionally, whether any of the additional elements of the claim are significantly more than an abstract are only evaluated under Step 2b. As such, it is immaterial under Step 2a, Prong 1 whether or not a claim includes “additional elements” that are an improvement to a technology. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections are maintained.
The applicant argues that the claim overcome the 101 rejections under Step 2a, Prong 2 because they provide a technical solution the technical problem of excessive fuel consumption. The examiner disagrees. First, the claims are not guaranteed to result in less fuel consumption. The claims do not require that a drive change the way in which they drive and, as such, cannot guarantee that there is any less fuel consumption. Instead, they merely provide a mechanism by which a driver or other person might obtain a reward should their driving score indicate one is due. Second, in order for a claim to overcome a 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or Step 2b the purported improvement must be rooted in the additional elements of a claim in a manner other than merely applying an abstract idea using the additional elements as a tool. The only claims in which vehicle and sensor means are within the scope of the claims are in claims 10-14. Thus, these are the only claims in which such limitations of the claims are considered “additional elements” of the claimed invention. Since there is no indication in the applicant’s disclosure that the sensor means is anything other than traditional vehicle sensors such as a speedometer providing this information to a VCU, the acquiring of this data is merely considered an insignificant extra-solution activity being performed by traditional vehicle component. As such, the claims merely require applying the abstract idea using a VCU and sensor as a tool. Any purported improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention (e.g., determining whether the driver has a driving score that earns them a reward, and assigning the reward to a wallet) is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the additional elements as a tool. According to MPEP 2106, improvements rooted solely in the abstract idea itself, such as the one argued, is not an improvement in technology and is not capable of overcoming a 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 or Step 2b ((see MPEP 2106.05(a) - “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”; and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) - “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”). Additionally, as made clear in the SAP v Investpic decision improvements of this nature are improvements to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (see the SAP v Investpic decision - Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues that the claim amendment overcomes the 101 rejection under Step 2b because the claims recite a specific unconventional combination of claim elements that include a particular machine and a particular transformation. The examiner disagrees. First, the claims do not recite any type of transformation of a matter. The only matter recited in the claim is data. This data is analyzed and results of the analysis are determined and assigned. Thus, the end result is data as well. The change of data from one type of data to another type of data is not considered a transformation of matter from one state to another. As such, it is clear that the claims do not recite such a transformation of matter. The analysis under Step 2b does not require an analysis be made regarding unconventional combination of claim elements. Instead, the analysis of the claims under Step 2b is directed to whether the claims recite an unconventional arrangement of “additional elements” of the claim. Additional elements, for the purpose of a 101 analysis, are defined as those elements which are not part of the abstract idea itself. Such an analysis does require that when an arrangement of devices are recited, consideration must be given to which steps of the abstract idea, irrespective of whether they are unconventional or not, are being performed by each device to determine whether the arrangement of devices results in an improvement. In the instant case, claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12-15 require that a processing means obtain data from a sensor means of a vehicle and the processing means perform the remaining steps of the claims. As indicated, in the 112 rejections above, this is broad enough for the sensor means to be any computer installed in a vehicle such as a navigation system transmitting data to another computer such as a server and said server performing the steps of the claims. In such a case, the sensor means merely performs the insignificant extra solution activity of transmitting data and every positively recited step of the claim can be performed by a server. Such an arrangement of devices does not recite in significantly more than the abstract idea because any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention would be rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the additional elements (a first general-purpose computer and a server) as tools which is insufficient to be considered significantly more. Likewise, claims 10-11 require that a control unit perform every step of the claims after receiving data from a sensor means. As indicated in the 112 rejections above, this is broad enough to be a GPS transceiver of a computer, such as a navigation system, installed in a vehicle providing driving speed data to the computer and the computer performing every step of the claim. Thus, the claims merely require applying the abstract idea using the additional elements (e.g., a general-purpose computer with generic computer components) as a tool. As such, the claims do not recite a particular machine. A general-purpose computer programmed to perform an abstract idea is still a general-purpose computer for the purpose of a 101 analysis. In this instance there is no arrangement of devices recited since the sensor means is merely a generic computer component such as a GPS transceiver of a general-purpose computer which is used as a tool to merely apply the abstract idea which is insufficient to be considered significantly more under Step 2b. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
If the applicant intends to claim an applicant invented vehicle control unit (VCU) that controls the vehicle in the same manner that traditional VCU and performs each of the claimed steps, then an argument might be able to be made that it is an applicant invented VCU which is an improvement over traditional VCUs. However, this might be a difficult approach given that the applicant asserts in the specification: “For example, the control unit 12 is a vehicle control unit, VCU, of per se known type.” Which would weigh heavily against such a VCU being an improved VCU. Conversely, a VCU is typically considered a highly specialized embedded computer (often called an ECU) designed to perform specific automotive tasks, such as monitoring sensors, executing real-time control logic, and managing a vehicle's powertrain or safety systems such as managing critical vehicle systems like throttle response, braking interfaces, and energy regeneration, and is usually optimized for deterministic behavior and real-time safety during vehicle operations. Thus, if the claims require the VCU of a vehicle perform the claimed steps, it may be an indication that the VCU is an applicant invented VCU which is an improvement over the traditional VCU. The success of such an argument would probably rest in whether or not the steps of the claims are merely a form of real-time control logic that is performable by a traditional VCU. If the applicant decides to amend the claims in this manner, the examiner suggests, if there is support in the applicant’s disclosure, adding a step of modifying a VCU of a vehicle to perform the steps of S2, S3, and S4 described in the specification (note a traditional VCU would already perform S1 because they already monitor sensors). Then, the examiner suggests providing a specific argument regarding why such an applicant invented VCU is an improvement over traditional VCUs. However, make sure the argued improvement is actually realized by the VCU performing the claimed steps. For example, the claim would not require that there be any type of reduction in fuel consumption of the vehicle. The user can drive the vehicle in any manner they desire even with such an applicant invented VCU installed in the vehicle. Whether the driver desires to obtain a reward for driving in a manner that reduces fuel consumption is a personal choice of the driver. Thus, the applicant invented VCU would not result in any reduction in fuel consumption of the vehicle. In addition, or alternatively, the applicant may believe that they have invented a new type of vehicle sensor that operates in a manner different from traditional vehicle sensors. If this is the case, the applicant should amend the claims, assuming there is support in the applicant’s disclosure, to recite the specific type of vehicle sensor the applicant has invented and provide a specific argument regarding the applicant invented vehicle sensor being an improved vehicle sensor. Likewise, if the applicant believes that the sensor is a general-purpose vehicle sensor and the processing means is a traditional VCU and a charging station server (e.g., general-purpose computer), then the applicant may still be able to overcome a 101 rejection if the claims were to be amended to require all three known devices within the scope of the claim and additionally amend the claims to require that specific significant steps (e.g., steps other than transmitting, receiving, storing, or displaying data) of the abstract idea be performed by the traditional VCU and to require that different significant steps be performed by the control station server. Amending the claims in this manner would result a specific arrangement of devices, wherein at least two of the devices perform a significant step of abstract idea. Should this arrangement of devices result in an improvement, then arguing such an improvement might result in the arrangement of devices being considered significantly more under Step 2b. However, once again, the claim must result in the argued improvement so an argument that the arrangement of device results in a reduction in fuel consumption would not overcome the 101 rejections, because the performing the claimed steps does not guarantee that fuel consumption be reduced. Based on the claims, the drive can continue to drive the vehicle in any manner they desire. If they happen to want to earn a reward for driving in a specific manner, the fuel consumption could be reduced. However, such a reduction is not a required result of performing the steps of the claims. Finally, if the applicant believe they have invented a new type of blockchain that operates in a manner different from traditional blockchains then the applicant, assuming there is support in the applicant’s disclosure, should amend the claims to positively recite, within the scope of the claims, the applicant invented blockchain and positively recite, within the scope of the claims, the computer and/or computers required to implement said newly invented blockchain. Then the applicant should argue the improvement the applicant invented blockchain has over traditional blockchains. While blockchains are merely data, and the technology behind blockchains is merely algorithms, the specific manner in which such a newly invented blockchain is implemented, such as a specific arrangement of devices each performing a significant step of the abstract idea and using this newly invented blockchain might be able to overcome a 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 or Step 2b if the arrangement of devices results in an actual improvement. However, if the applicant is merely using a traditional blockchain then said blockchain itself is part of the abstract idea. Even if the examiner were to consider some part of the traditional blockchain to be an additional element of the claim, the claim would merely require using a traditional blockchain in a specific environment which would be insufficient to overcome a 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or Step 2b.
The applicant argues that the claims overcome the 35 USC 103 rejection because the prior art does not disclose a driving score that is direct inverse proportion to fuel consumption. The examiner disagrees. First the claims do not require that the driving score be a “direct inverse proportion to fuel consumption”. The claims require that the driving score be inversely proportional to the degree of fuel consumption of the vehicle. As noted in the 103 rejections above, Gostoli discloses in paragraphs 60-68 that the driving style evaluation software determines a driving style evaluation index for each driver which can be determined with respect to a fuel savings perspective using a determined fuel economy index; the driving style evaluation index is computed as a linear combination of indexes computed from the fuel savings perspective. Thus, the higher the fuel consumption the lower the index, and the lower the fuel consumption the higher the index which means the driving style evaluation index is inversely proportional to the degree of fuel consumption. As such, it is clear that the prior art teaches the limitations of the claims and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues that the combination of Gostoli and Miller is improper because they are not analogous art and represent the use of impermissible hindsight. The examiner strongly disagrees. Both Gostoli and Miller disclose the evaluating of the driving of a vehicle and, as such, are absolutely analogous art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the teaching of Miller when considering the invention of Gostoli. Thus, no impermissible hindsight by using the applicant’s claims as a roadmap would have been required to arrive at the obvious combination. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues that the combination of Gostoli and Miller do not disclose the acquiring of data from sensor means and calculating a score inversely proportional to fuel consumption. The examiner strongly disagrees. As indicated in the instant rejection above, as well as, in the rejections of claims 1, 4, and 5 of the previous action, the prior art of Gostoli teaches each of the argued limitations. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vartanian et al. (PGPUB:2019/0287180) discloses a driver monitoring and rewards program, wherein raw data from a vehicle is transformed into driving factors which are used to generate a safe driving score, wherein rewards are provided to users based on the safe driving score.
Ostrowski et al. (PGPUB: 2023/0314145) which discloses a token-based system managed in a block chain for providing rewards to drivers based on information obtained from the driver’s vehicle.
Tran et al. (US Patent: 9,849,364) which discloses obtaining behavior parameters of a driver from vehicle while the vehicle is being driven, wherein the behavior parameters are used to trigger a reward payment if goals are met, wherein the reward is associated with a smart contract and payable in tokens associated with a blockchain.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights