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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 04 April 2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Applicant’s specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for “electronic signals” recited in the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 should be amended to recite “wherein the electronic signals are received via wireless communication from a mobile device that comprises the one or more sensors” to complete the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite the limitations “determining ... that a driving event involving the vehicle occurred at a first time during the drive based on the movements; ...;determining ... an estimated location of the driving event in relation to the estimated sequence based on the first time; ... and identifying ... a location along the matching route that corresponds to the estimated location of the driving event” (emphasis added). Examiner has looked at Applicant’s as-filed specification (e.g. at least Figure 8B, [0007], [0088], [0121], [0132] and [0147]) and cannot find the appropriate support for the embodiments associated with the missing/matching route to include determining that a driving event has occurred “at a first time” (emphasis added), to determine an “estimated location” of the driving event “in relation to the estimated sequence” (emphasis added) and “based on the first time” (emphasis added) and to then identify a different location along the matching/missing route “that corresponds to the estimated location” (emphasis added). Examiner notes that to expedite prosecution, either appropriate amendments need to be filed to overcome the 35 USC 112(a) rejection and/or Applicant’s remarks need to include specific recitations from the specification that show/provide explicit support for the above limitations.
Claims 2 and 13 recite the limitations “activating ... an application stored on the mobile phone after completion of the drive” (emphasis added). From Applicant’s specification, Examiner understands that once the application is activated, the drive which directly corresponds to the missing/matching route is completed/done (e.g. the end location for the drive). However, Examiner does not find support for the processor to be activating the application specifically after completion of the drive. Further clarification and/or amendment is necessary.
Claims 3-11 and 14-19 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium and claim 20 is directed to a system. Therefore, claims 1, 12 and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 20 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 1 and 12 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 20 as discussed here. Claim 20 recites:
A system comprising: one or more sensors configured to measure movements of the one or more sensors while the one or more sensors are disposed in a vehicle during a drive; and an electronic device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing a set of instructions; wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the set of instructions to: receive electronic signals from the one or more sensors, the electronic signals indicating the movements; determine that a driving event involving the vehicle occurred at a first time during the drive based on the movements; detect one or more complete turns made by the vehicle during the drive based on the movements; determine a distance traveled by the vehicle before and after each of the one or more complete turns based on the movements; construct an estimated sequence of the one or more complete turns and the distance traveled by the vehicle before and after each of the one or more complete turns; determine an estimated location of the driving event in relation to the estimated sequence based on the first time; determine a start location and an end location for the drive; select a plurality of candidate routes between the start location and the end location from map data for a region comprising the start location and the end location, wherein each candidate route of the plurality of candidate routes comprises a sequence of one or more turns and one or more travel distances between the start location and the end location; compare the sequence from each candidate route of the plurality of candidate routes with the estimated sequence to identify a matching route for the drive; and identify a location along the matching route that corresponds to the estimated location of the driving event
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the determining(s) ..., detecting turn(s) ... constructing ... selecting ... comparing ... and identifying ... in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, mesured, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system comprising: one or more sensors configured to measure movements of the one or more sensors while the one or more sensors are disposed in a vehicle during a drive; and an electronic device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing a set of instructions; wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the set of instructions to: receive electronic signals from the one or more sensors, the electronic signals indicating the movements; determine that a driving event involving the vehicle occurred at a first time during the drive based on the movements; detect one or more complete turns made by the vehicle during the drive based on the movements; determine a distance traveled by the vehicle before and after each of the one or more complete turns based on the movements; construct an estimated sequence of the one or more complete turns and the distance traveled by the vehicle before and after each of the one or more complete turns; determine an estimated location of the driving event in relation to the estimated sequence based on the first time; determine a start location and an end location for the drive; select a plurality of candidate routes between the start location and the end location from map data for a region comprising the start location and the end location, wherein each candidate route of the plurality of candidate routes comprises a sequence of one or more turns and one or more travel distances between the start location and the end location; compare the sequence from each candidate route of the plurality of candidate routes with the estimated sequence to identify a matching route for the drive; and identify a location along the matching route that corresponds to the estimated location of the driving event
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of measuring ... and receiving ... in all independent claims and “transmit ...” in claim 1 the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the measuring ... and receiving ... steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of acquiring data for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of sending information from some of the previous steps), and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1, 12 and 20 further recite the “A method comprising: ..., by one or more sensors disposed in a vehicle during a drive ..., the one or more sensors being configured to ... to a processor of an electronic device ..., by the processor ...” (claim 1), “A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: ...” (claim 12) and “A system comprising: one or more sensors configured to ... while the one or more sensors are disposed in a vehicle during a drive; and an electronic device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing a set of instructions; wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the set of instructions to: ...” (claim 20) which merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 20 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of measuring and receiving ... are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of transmitting ... is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performances are well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 20.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11841231 in view of Cordova (US20170210323A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application cover the same subject matter claimed in the reference application with only slight but obvious/implicit differences in wording, when the claims of the reference application are read in light of the reference application specification, and with the limitations of the claims in the present application corresponding to and/or obvious from the limitations in the reference application. The only limitations excluded from such reasoning are the limitations associated with the “driving event” in the independent claims of the present application which would be obvious in view of Cordova (US20170210323A1) as explained under the 35 USC 103 rejection below.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12270664 in view of Cordova (US20170210323A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application cover the same subject matter claimed in the reference application with only slight but obvious/implicit differences in wording, when the claims of the reference application are read in light of the reference application specification, and with the limitations of the claims in the present application corresponding to and/or obvious from the limitations in the reference application. The only limitations excluded from such reasoning are the limitations associated with the “driving event” in the independent claims of the present application which would be obvious in view of Cordova (US20170210323A1) as explained under the 35 USC 103 rejection below.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/364,655 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application cover the same subject matter claimed in the reference application with only slight but obvious/implicit differences in wording, when the claims of the reference application are read in light of the reference application specification, and with the limitations of the claims in the present application corresponding to and/or obvious from the limitations in the reference application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-10, 12, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed (US20180112983A1) in view of Primack (US20210372800A1) in further view of Cordova (US20170210323A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ahmed discloses a method (see at least [0002]) comprising: measuring, by one or more sensors disposed in a vehicle during a drive for which accurate location data is unavailable, movements of the one or more sensors, the one or more sensors being configured to transmit electronic signals to a processor of an electronic device indicating the movements of the one or more sensors during the driven (see at least [0003], [0006], [0044], [0063] and [0068]); receiving, by the processor, the electronic signals from the one or more sensors indicating the movements (see at least [0006], [0008], [0047], [0058] and [0063]); detecting, by the processor, one or more angle changes made by the vehicle during the drive based on the movements (see at least [0044], [0064], [0068], [0077], [0079], [0111], [0120], [0126] and [0129]); determining, by the processor, a distance traveled by the vehicle before and after each of the one or more angle changes based on the movements (see at least Figure 14, [0064], [0079], [0111] and [0126]); constructing, by the processor, an estimated sequence of the one or more angle changes and the distance traveled by the vehicle before and after each of the one or more angle changes (see at least Figure 14, [0006], [0064], [0079], [0111], [0124] and [0126]); determining, by the processor, a start location and an end location for the drive (see at least [0006], [0063], [0064] and [0125]); selecting, by the processor, a plurality of candidate routes between the start location and the end location from map data for a region comprising the start location and the end location, wherein each candidate route of the plurality of candidate routes comprises a sequence of one or more angle changes and one or more travel distances between the start location and the end location (see at least Figure 13, [0006], [0064], [0079], [0109], [0123]-[0125] and [0132]); comparing, by the processor, the sequence from each candidate route of the plurality of candidate routes with the estimated sequence to identify a matching route for the drive (see at least Figure 13, Figure 14, [0006], [0064], [0124], [0127], [0130] and [0132]).
While Ahmed discloses that vectors with angle changes below a threshold are combined resulting in only remaining vectors with angle changes above the threshold to represent the estimated trajectory/sequence (see at least [0077], [0120] and [0129]), since Ahmed does not explicitly disclose the one or more angle changes to be one or more complete turns and one or more turns (e.g. not using the “turn” language), to expedite prosecution, Examiner points to Primack which teaches the one or more angle changes to be one or more complete turns and one or more turns (see at least [0034], [0056], [0085], [0086], [0112] and [0113]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ahmed to incorporate the teachings of Primack which teaches the one or more angle changes to be one or more complete turns and one or more turns since they are directed to tracking motion of vehicle(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Primack would increase reliability of the overall system.
Ahmed as modified by Primack does not explicitly disclose determining, by the processor, that a driving event involving the vehicle occurred at a first time during the drive based on the movements; determining, by the processor, an estimated location of the driving event in relation to the estimated sequence based on the first time; and identifying, by the processor, a location along the matching route that corresponds to the estimated location of the driving event. However, Cordova teaches determining, by the processor, that a driving event involving the vehicle occurred at a first time during the drive based on the movements; determining, by the processor, an estimated location of the driving event in relation to the estimated sequence based on the first time; and identifying, by the processor, a location along the matching route that corresponds to the estimated location of the driving event (see at least [0094]-[0109] and [0131]-[0135]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ahmed as modified by Primack to incorporate the teachings of Cordova which teaches determining, by the processor, that a driving event involving the vehicle occurred at a first time during the drive based on the movements; determining, by the processor, an estimated location of the driving event in relation to the estimated sequence based on the first time; and identifying, by the processor, a location along the matching route that corresponds to the estimated location of the driving event since they are directed to tracking motion of vehicle(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Cordova would increase utility and safety of the overall system.
Regarding claim 3, Ahmed as modified by Primack and Cordova discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one of an accelerometer, a magnetometer, a gyroscope, a compass, or a barometer (see at least Ahmed [0003], [0050] and [0086]).
Regarding claim 4, Ahmed as modified by Primack and Cordova discloses wherein the movements do not include GPS location data (see at least Ahmed [0003], [0050] and [0086]).
Regarding claim 7, Ahmed does not explicitly disclose wherein detecting the one or more complete turns made by the vehicle comprises: determining rates of course change with respect to time from the movements; and comparing the rates of course change against a threshold, wherein a turn is detected in response to determining that a rate of course change exceeds the threshold. However, Primack teaches wherein detecting the one or more complete turns made by the vehicle comprises: determining rates of course change with respect to time from the movements; and comparing the rates of course change against a threshold, wherein a turn is detected in response to determining that a rate of course change exceeds the threshold (see at least [0086], [0112] and [0113]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ahmed to incorporate the teachings of Primack which teaches wherein detecting the one or more complete turns made by the vehicle comprises: determining rates of course change with respect to time from the movements; and comparing the rates of course change against a threshold, wherein a turn is detected in response to determining that a rate of course change exceeds the threshold since they are directed to tracking motion of vehicle(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Primack would increase reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 8, Ahmed does not explicitly disclose wherein the rates of course change are determined by executing a trained neural network. However, Primack teaches wherein the rates of course change are determined by executing a trained neural network (see at least [0086], [0097], [0112] and [0113]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ahmed to incorporate the teachings of Primack which teaches wherein the rates of course change are determined by executing a trained neural network since they are directed to tracking motion of vehicle(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Primack would increase reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 9, Ahmed as modified by Primack does not explicitly disclose wherein the driving event is a crash event involving the vehicle. However, Cordova teaches wherein the driving event is a crash event involving the vehicle (see at least [0094]-[0109] and [0131]-[0135]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ahmed as modified by Primack to incorporate the teachings of Cordova which teaches wherein the driving event is a crash event involving the vehicle since they are directed to tracking motion of vehicle(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Cordova would increase utility and safety of the overall system.
Regarding claim 10, Ahmed as modified by Primack and Cordova discloses wherein the one or more sensors are part of a mobile device that transmits the electronic signals to the electronic device via wireless communications (see at least Ahmed [0003], [0008], [0047] and [0058]).
Regarding claim 12 , Ahmed discloses non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (see at least [0002] and [0037]). The rest of claim 12 is commensurate in scope with claim 1. See above for rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is commensurate in scope with claims 3 and 4. See above for rejection of claims 3 and 4.
Regarding claims 17 and 19, claims 17 and 19 commensurate in scope with claims 7 and 10, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 7 and 10.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is commensurate in scope with claim 9. See above for rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, Ahmed discloses a system comprising: one or more sensors configured to measure ...; and an electronic device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing a set of instructions; wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the set of instructions to (see at least [0002], [0008], [0037], [0047] and [0058]). The rest of claim 20 is commensurate in scope with claim 1. See above for rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed (US20180112983A1) in view of Primack (US20210372800A1) in further view of Cordova (US20170210323A1) in yet further view of Haque (US20190204838A1) and in yet further view of Matus (US20190208384A1).
Regarding claim 2, Ahmed as modified by Primack and Cordova discloses wherein the electronic device is a mobile phone (see at least Ahmed [0003] and [0048]).
Ahmed as modified by Primack and Cordova fails to explicitly disclose the method further comprises: activating, by the processor, an application stored on the mobile phone after completion of the drive; and detecting, by the processor, and in response to activating the application, a location of the mobile phone at an activation time of the application to determine the end location.
Haque teaches detecting, by the processor, and in response to a trigger, a location of the mobile phone at a trigger time to determine the end location (see at least Figure 6, [0034] and [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ahmed as modified by Primack and Cordova to incorporate the teachings of Haque which teaches detecting, by the processor, and in response to a trigger, a location of the mobile phone at a trigger time to determine the end location since they are directed to monitoring vehicle movements and incorporation of the teachings of Haque would increase accuracy and thereby reliability of the overall system.
Matus teaches activating, by the processor, an application stored on the mobile phone after completion of the drive; activating the application being the trigger, and the trigger time being an activation time of the application (see at least [0032] and [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ahmed as modified by Primack, Cordova and Haque to incorporate the teachings of Matus which teaches activating, by the processor, an application stored on the mobile phone after completion of the drive; activating the application being the trigger, and the trigger time being an activation time of the application since they are directed to use of mobile devices for vehicle measurements and incorporation of the teachings of Matus would increase utility and reliability of the overall disclosure.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is commensurate in scope with claim 2. See above for rejection of claim 2.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed (US20180112983A1) in view of Primack (US20210372800A1) in further view of Cordova (US20170210323A1) in yet further view of Nunkesser (US20210172754A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ahmed as modified by Primack and Cordova fails to explicitly disclose wherein determining the distance traveled by the vehicle before and after each of the one or more complete turns comprises: analyzing the movements to generate predicted speeds of the vehicle over time before and after each of the one or more complete turns; and integrating the predicted speeds of the vehicle over time to produce the distance traveled by the vehicle before and after each of the one or more complete turns. However, Nunkesser teaches wherein determining the distance traveled by the vehicle before and after each of the one or more complete turns comprises: analyzing the movements to generate predicted speeds of the vehicle over time before and after each of the one or more complete turns; and integrating the predicted speeds of the vehicle over time to produce the distance traveled by the vehicle before and after each of the one or more complete turns (see at least [0062] and [0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ahmed as modified by Primack and Cordova to incorporate the teachings of Nunkesser which teaches wherein determining the distance traveled by the vehicle before and after each of the one or more complete turns comprises: analyzing the movements to generate predicted speeds of the vehicle over time before and after each of the one or more complete turns; and integrating the predicted speeds of the vehicle over time to produce the distance traveled by the vehicle before and after each of the one or more complete turns since they are directed to navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Nunkesser would increase accuracy and thereby increase the reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is commensurate in scope with claim 5. See above for rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed (US20180112983A1) in view of Primack (US20210372800A1) in further view of Cordova (US20170210323A1) in yet further view of Nunkesser (US20210172754A1) and in yet further view of Shea (US10246037B1).
Regarding claim 6, Ahmed as modified by Primack and Cordova discloses wherein the movements include motion sensor measurements (see at least Ahmed [0003], [0006], [0044], [0063] and [0068]).
Ahmed as modified by Primack and Cordova fails to disclose analyzing the movements to generate the predicted speeds comprises: converting the motion sensor measurements into a frequency domain; filtering, with a bandpass filter, the motion sensor measurements in the frequency domain to eliminate high frequency sensor measurements from the motion sensor measurements; and defining a set of contiguous windows based on remaining measurements in the motion sensor measurements after filtering the motion sensor measurements to eliminate the high frequency sensor measurements, each contiguous window of the set of contiguous windows representing a contiguous portion of the remaining measurements in the motion sensor measurements; generating, for each contiguous window of the set of contiguous windows, a set of features by resampling the motion sensor measurements of the contiguous window at one or more predefined frequencies; and executing a trained neural network using the set of features.
Nunkesser teaches analyzing the movements to generate the predicted speeds comprises: executing a trained neural network using the set of features (see at least [0062] and [0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ahmed as modified by Primack and Cordova to incorporate the teachings of Nunkesser which teaches analyzing the movements to generate the predicted speeds comprises: executing a trained neural network using the set of features since they are directed to navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Nunkesser would increase accuracy and thereby increase the reliability of the overall system.
Shea teaches converting the motion sensor measurements into a frequency domain; filtering, with a bandpass filter, the motion sensor measurements in the frequency domain to eliminate high frequency sensor measurements from the motion sensor measurements; and defining a set of contiguous windows based on remaining measurements in the motion sensor measurements after filtering the motion sensor measurements to eliminate the high frequency sensor measurements, each contiguous window of the set of contiguous windows representing a contiguous portion of the remaining measurements in the motion sensor measurements; generating, for each contiguous window of the set of contiguous windows, a set of features by resampling the motion sensor measurements of the contiguous window at one or more predefined frequencies (see at least Figure 5, line 1 of Col.9-line 51 of Col.10, tables on Col.9&10, line 53 of Col.10-line 30 of Col.11, lines 41-67 of Col.14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ahmed as modified by Primack and Cordova to incorporate the teachings of Shea which teaches converting the motion sensor measurements into a frequency domain; filtering, with a bandpass filter, the motion sensor measurements in the frequency domain to eliminate high frequency sensor measurements from the motion sensor measurements; and defining a set of contiguous windows based on remaining measurements in the motion sensor measurements after filtering the motion sensor measurements to eliminate the high frequency sensor measurements, each contiguous window of the set of contiguous windows representing a contiguous portion of the remaining measurements in the motion sensor measurements; generating, for each contiguous window of the set of contiguous windows, a set of features by resampling the motion sensor measurements of the contiguous window at one or more predefined frequencies since they are directed to navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Shea would increase accuracy and thereby increase the reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is commensurate in scope with claim 6. See above for rejection of claim 6.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed (US20180112983A1) in view of Primack (US20210372800A1) in further view of Cordova (US20170210323A1) in yet further view of Haque (US20190204838A1).
Regarding claim 11, Ahmed as modified by Primack and Cordova fails to disclose wherein the start location is determined based on a previous end location of a previous trip or visit. However, Haque teaches wherein the start location is determined based on a previous end location of a previous trip or visit (see at least Figure 5, [0030], [0033] and [0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ahmed as modified by Primack and Cordova to incorporate the teachings of Haque which teaches wherein the start location is determined based on a previous end location of a previous trip or visit since they are directed to monitoring vehicle movements and incorporation of the teachings of Haque would increase accuracy and thereby reliability of the overall system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights