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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed June 5, 2026. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-15 and 17-20 were amended and claims 3, 7, 10 and 16 were left as previously presented. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on September 1, 2026 concerning the previous rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully notes that the test to subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101 for product and process: first, determine whether the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Second, (Step 2A Prong 1) determining whether the claims are directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions). Third, (step 2 A prong 2) determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Fourth, (step 2B) determining whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant argues that the claims result in a practical solution that is identifying driving patterns to generate a vehicle-specific maintenance schedule and to perform an action based on the at vehicle-specific maintenance schedule. In response, Examiner states that data transmitted and received is considered receiving and transmitting data over a network which is a generic function. Moreover, monitoring vehicle data using mobile device or vehicle sensors is considered as insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC 101 prong 2.
Applicant arguments concerning the precious rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 102 rejection has been fully considered and moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below.
Applicant arguments with respect to claim 9 interpretation is fully considered but are not persuasive. Examiner states that claim 8 which claim 9 depends on identifies 4 different options. Claim 9 further limits one of those options which renders claim 9 as optional.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 9 is interpreted as being optional. The dependent claim (claim 8) has 4 optional steps (“wherein the transportation request state comprises at least one of: a first transportation request state wherein the mobile electronic device is uninitialized; a second transportation request state wherein the mobile electronic device is unassigned to a transportation request; a third transportation request state wherein the mobile electronic device is assigned to the transportation request; or a fourth transportation request state wherein the mobile electronic device is en route to a destination associated with the transportation request.”), however, claim 9 define one of the steps which makes this claims optional. Applicant is required to either cancel the claims or rewrite them in proper form, since it is unclear which option the applicant is trying to consider.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “receiving driving data corresponding to a transportation provider; identifying, based on the driving data, one or more driving patterns; generating, based on the driving patterns, a customized maintenance schedule for a vehicle; and based on the customized maintenance schedule, performing a transportation management action is logged in to the transportation application.”
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation done by a human using generic computer components under mental steps (human using pen and paper). That is, other than reciting “processors” and “non-transitory memory” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human using generic computer component. For example, “receiving”, “identifying”, “generating”, and “performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to manually receive driving data and determining transportation maintenance schedule.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements- a “processor”, “non-transitory memory”, “sensor”, “non-transitory computer readable medium” and “personal user device” to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of receiving information, identifying solutions and determining what should be presented to a user) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claims 1, 19 and 20 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitations of the dependent claims 2-18, further describe the identified abstract idea. In addition, the limitations of claims 3, 7, 10 and 13-14 define how the driving data is determined for purposes of maintenance which further describes the abstract idea. The generic computer component of claims 2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12 and 15-18 (accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, mobile device, GPS radio, sensor) merely serve as the generic computer component and the functions performed by the generic computer components essentially amount to the abstract idea identified above. None of the dependent claims when taken separately in combination with each dependent claims parent claim overcome the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 10, 12-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. referred herein as Bender (U.S. Patent No. 11,461,674) in view of Coleman II Et al. referred herein as Coleman (U.S. Patent No. 12,282,327).
As to claims 1, 19 and 20, Bender teaches a system, a method and a computer readable medium comprising:
a non-transitory memory; and one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions from the non- transitory memory to perform operations comprising: receiving, at a transportation management system, driving data collected via one or more sensors of a mobile electronic device corresponding to a transportation provider, while the mobile electronic device is logged in to a transportation application hosted by the mobile electronic device; (col 3 lines 40-63 and col 6 lines 32-39, the driving data is collected via sensors and transmitted to the logging device)
identifying, based on the driving data collected via the one or more sensors, one or more driving patterns associated with the mobile electronic device; ( col 6 lines 40-49 and col 10 lines 48-67)
generating, based on the driving patterns, a customized maintenance schedule for a vehicle associated with the mobile electronic device; (col 4 lines 48-58, col 8 lines 23-34 and col 10 lines 7-22)
based on the customized maintenance schedule, performing a transportation management action while the mobile electronic device is logged in to the transportation application. (col 4 lines 48-58, col 8 lines 23-34 and col 10 lines 7-22)
Bender does not teach collecting driving habits using personal user device.
However, Coleman teaches collecting driving data using a mobile communication device. (col 3 lines 27-45, col 5 lines 13-25 and col 5-6 lines 58-19)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to collect driving data using a mobile communication device in Bender as taught by Coleman. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Coleman that doing so would allow faster evaluation of data, and more efficient and faster generation of safety predictions.
As to claim 2, Bender in view of Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Bender further teaches:
wherein the one or more sensors comprises at least one of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, or a magnetometer. (col 5 lines 26-39)
As to claim 3, Bender in view of Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Bender further teaches:
wherein: the driving patterns comprise a metric delineating a frequency of sudden stops; (col 9 lines 41-58)
the customized maintenance schedule comprises a frequency for replacing brake pads of the vehicle, wherein the frequency for replacing the brake pads is based on the metric delineating the frequency of sudden stops. (col 9 lines 41-58
As to claim 4, Bender in view of Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Bender further teaches:
wherein the driving patterns comprise a metric corresponding to at least one of: how hard the transportation provider corresponding to the personal user device corners; how hard the transportation provider accelerates; or how fast the transportation provider drives. (col 9 lines 41-58)
As to claims 5 and 18, Bender in view of Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Bender does not teach:
wherein the mobile electronic device comprises a mobile phone
However, Coleman teaches:
wherein the mobile electronic device comprises a mobile phone (col 3 lines 27-45)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to collect driving data using a mobile communication device in Bender as taught by Coleman. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Coleman that doing so would allow faster evaluation of data, and more efficient and faster generation of safety predictions.
As to claim 6, Bender in view of Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Bender further teaches:
wherein the received driving data comprises at least one of: telemetry data, collected via an accelerometer of the mobile electronic device, comprising at least one of an acceleration rate, a deceleration rate, or an average acceleration rate of the vehicle associated with the mobile electronic device; movement data, collected via at least one of a gyroscope or a magnetometer of the mobile electronic device, for the vehicle associated with the mobile electronic device; location data, collected via a GPS radio of the mobile electronic device, for the vehicle associated with the mobile electronic device; light data collected via an ambient light sensor of the mobile electronic device; or ride-history data associated with the mobile electronic device. (col 9 lines 41-58)
As to claim 7, Bender in view of Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Bender further teaches:
wherein at least one of the identified driving patterns is associated with at least one of: a geographic location; a road type; a route; a vehicle type; a time window; a transportation mode; or a transportation request state. (col 10 lines 7-22)
As to claim 10, Bender in view of Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Bender further teaches:
wherein driving data received from one data source is weighted differently from driving data received from at least one other data source when identifying the one or more driving patterns. (col 9 lines 1-7 and 25-40, the vehicle comprises of multiple sensors that transmits data)
As to claim 12, Bender in view of Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above.
Bender further teaches:
wherein: the one or more sensors comprises a plurality of different sensors; and weighing driving data received from one data source differently from driving data received from at least one other data source comprises weighing driving data collected from one sensor differently than driving data collected from another sensor. (col 9 lines 1-7 and 25-40)
As to claim 13, Bender in view of Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above.
Bender further teaches:
wherein weighing the driving data comprises dynamically updating one or more initial weightings (col 7-8 lines 61-4 and col 9 lines 25-40)
dynamically updating the initial weightings comprises: determining that a certain data source has lost its ability to provide accurate information; and in response to determining that the certain data source has lost its ability to provide accurate information, at least one of: dynamically reducing the weighing of driving data collected via the certain data source; or increasing the weighting of one or more additional data sources. (col 6 lines 40-49 and col 9 lines 25-40)
As to claim 15, Bender in view of Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
Bender further teaches:
wherein the driving data is automatically collected by the one or more sensors and transmitted to the transportation management system without user intervention while the personal user device is logged in to the transportation application (col 6 lines 40-49 and col 9 lines 25-40)
As to claim 16, Bender in view of Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Bender further teaches:
wherein: receiving the driving data collected via the one or more sensors comprises applying the driving data to a machine-learning model; and identifying the one or more driving patterns comprises identifying the one or more driving patterns as a result from the machine-learning model. (col 2 lines 53-60, col 8 lines 18-34 and col 10 lines 48-67)
As to claim 17, Bender in view of Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above.
Bender further teaches:
wherein: the driving data, collected via the one or more sensors, is continually received; (col 7-8 lines 61-4)
the customized maintenance schedule is continually updated based the continually received driving data. (col 7-8 lines 61-4 and col 8 lines 5-41)
Claims 8, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. referred herein as Bender (U.S. Patent No. 11,461,674) in view of Coleman II Et al. referred herein as Coleman (U.S. Patent No. 12,282,327), furhter in view of Pandit et al. referred herein as Pandit (U.S. Patent No. 10,573,184).
As to claim 8, Bender in view of Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above.
Bender and Coleman do not teach:
wherein the transportation request state comprises at least one of: a first transportation request state wherein the mobile electronic device is uninitialized; a second transportation request state wherein the mobile electronic device is unassigned to a transportation request; a third transportation request state wherein the mobile electronic device is assigned to the transportation request; or a fourth transportation request state wherein the mobile electronic device is en route to a destination associated with the transportation request.
However, Pandit teaches:
wherein the transportation request state comprises at least one of: a first transportation request state wherein the mobile electronic device is uninitialized; a second transportation request state wherein the mobile electronic device is unassigned to a transportation request; a third transportation request state wherein the mobile electronic device is assigned to the transportation request; or a fourth transportation request state wherein the mobile electronic device is en route to a destination associated with the transportation request. (col 7 lines 9-22)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to use a mobile device in Bender in view of Coleman as taught by Pandit. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Pendit that doing so would allow the passenger to access security component on security server.
As to claim 11, Bender in view of Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above.
Bender and Coleman do not teach:
wherein portions of the received driving data are weighted differently: when the mobile electronic device has previously been subjected to increased scrutiny within the transportation management system, when the mobile electronic device is in a specific transportation request state, when the mobile electronic device is in a specified location, when ride-history data dictates an alternative weighting, or when an event has occurred near a current location of the mobile electronic device.
However, Pandit teaches:
wherein portions of the received driving data are weighted differently: when the mobile electronic device has previously been subjected to increased scrutiny within the transportation management system, when the mobile electronic device is in a specific transportation request state, when the mobile electronic device is in a specified location, when ride-history data dictates an alternative weighting, or when an event has occurred near a current location of the mobile electronic device. (col 8-9 lines 66-16, the system determines a deviation from a specific route and transmit a request to the user to confirm based on the deviation, if the user did not confirm the system uses other sensors to determine if there is a security alert)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to use a mobile device in Bender in view of Coleman as taught by Pandit. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Pendit that doing so would allow the passenger to access security component on security server.
As to claim 14, Bender in view of Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
Bender and Coleman do not teach:
wherein determining that a certain data source has lost its ability to provide accurate information comprises determining that data received from an accelerometer of the personal user device is outside of a designated range; and dynamically reducing the weighing of driving data collected via the certain data source comprises decreasing a weight of the data received from the accelerometer in response to determining that the data is outside of the designated range based on an inference that data outside of the designated range is indicative of mobile device movement within the vehicle.
However, Pandit teaches:
wherein dynamically updating the initial weightings comprises: determining that a certain data source has lost its ability to provide accurate information; and in response to determining that the certain data source has lost its ability to provide accurate information, at least one of: dynamically reducing the weighing of driving data collected via the certain data source; or increasing the weighting of one or more additional data sources. (col 8-9 lines 66-16, the system determines a deviation from a specific route and transmit a request to the user to confirm based on the deviation, if the user did not confirm the system uses other sensors to determine if there is a security alert)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to use a mobile device in Bender in view of Coleman as taught by Pandit. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Pendit that doing so would allow the passenger to access security component on security server.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
