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 preliminary amendment dated February 11, 2025 cancelled no claims. Claims 4-7, 9, and 14-15 were amended and no new claims were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 1-15.
Claim Interpretation
The following terms have been interpreted in light of the applicant’s specification:
Processing means: a general-purpose computer with a processor and a memory such as a server or vehicle control unit (Based on page 3 lines 12-13 and page 8, lines 10-11 of the applicant’s specification).
Control Unit: a general-purpose computer such as a vehicle control unit (VCU) (Based on page Based on page 3 lines 12-13)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 attempts to change the scope of claim 12 from which it depends to require there be a plurality of vehicles operated by a plurality of drivers, rather than further limit claim 12 as required. The method of Claim 12 is broad enough to encompass either a single vehicle operated by a single drive or a plurality of vehicles operated by a plurality of drivers. Rather than further limiting 12 by reciting something like “wherein, when the at least one vehicle includes plurality of vehicles and the at least one driver includes a plurality of said drivers, the processing means is further configured to: …”, claim 14 requires claim 12 to comprise a plurality of said vehicles. Such a requirement attempts to change the scope of claim 12 by eliminating the ability of the invention to be performed with a single vehicle as required by claim 12. The examiner suggests the applicant amend claim 14 to recite “the system according to claim 12, wherein, when the at least one vehicle includes plurality of vehicles and the at least one driver includes a plurality of said drivers, the processing means is further configured to: …”. Amending the claim in this manner would allow for the applicant to further limit the functions of the invention recited 12 to include the additional functionality recited in claim 14 without changing the scope of 12 from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-9 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 1-9 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:
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;
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 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 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 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).
The dependent claims 2-9 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 acquiring which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 4; the examiner notes that the vehicle and its sensor means are outside the scope of the claimed invention and, as such, have been included as part of the abstract idea because they cannot be considered “additional elements” of the claimed invention); further limiting the driving score which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 5); 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 1-9 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;
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 (e.g. a vehicle with a 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 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) such that it amounts to no more than using a vehicle with a computer 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, or merely uses a vehicle with 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 vehicle, such as a work vehicle or heavy vehicle, comprising a vehicle control unit (e.g. a vehicle with a general-purpose computer). 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); 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;
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 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 one or more vehicles and a server (i.e. a control station) 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 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, 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, a server, and a network, or merely uses one or more vehicles 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 and a server (i.e. a control station) 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 and server were known; 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 12-15 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) 1-5, 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, vehicle, method and computer program product for reduction of fuel consumption of a vehicle operable by a driver, comprising:
one or more vehicles with a control unit and a control station (i.e., server) communicatively coupled (Paragraphs 21,127: vehicle with a data processing device (e.g., control unit; Paragraph 25: a data processing server in communication with the control unit) performing the steps of:
acquiring driving data 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 (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);
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 4: Gostoli and Miller disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of acquiring the driving data comprises acquiring the driving data from sensor means of the vehicle. (Gostoli – Paragraphs 26-42: the data logger obtains data from various sensors of the vehicle)
Claim 5: Gostoli and Miller disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the driving score is inversely proportional to the degree of fuel consumption of the vehicle. (Gostoli – Paragraphs 66-67: 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)
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: Gostoli and Miller disclose the system according to claim 12, comprising:
a first plurality of said vehicles operable by a second plurality of said drivers, the vehicles forming 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)
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.
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