DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Objections and rejection are recited below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application, filed on 20 June 2025, is a continuation of application 18/087,095, and is now US Patent No. 12,358,463. Application 18/087,095, filed on 22 December 2022, is a continuation of application 17/081, 623 and is now US Patent No. 11,565,654. Application 17/081,623, filed on 27 October 2020, is a continuation of application 14/798,615, and is now US Patent No. 10,832,327. Application 14/798,615 filed on 14 July 2015, takes priority from provisional applications 62/145,228, filed on 09 April 2015, and 62/040,735 filed on 22 August 2014. Accordingly, this application is given priority from 22 August 2014.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, in the representative limitation:
transmitting, by the one or more processors to a mobile device associated with the driver, based at least in part on the driving score and preferences of the driver, instructions to limit texting functionality of the mobile device.
the phrase “to limit texting functionality of the mobile device” is a statement of intended use which does not further limit the claim; “to limit” is not explicitly claiming “limiting texting functionality of the mobile device”. Accordingly, the phase will be given limited patentable weight.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are objected to because in the representative limitation:
collecting, at one or more processors from one or more sensors, telematics data associated with driving behavior of a driver and comprising sensor data indicative of a hard braking event;
it is not clear what the difference is between “telematics” data and “sensor” data. For purposes of examination, the terms will be interpreted as one in the same. Correction is required.
Claims 6 is objected to because the phrase “wherein: the computer-implemented method further comprises” is rhetorical and does not add to the claim. The claim would be better written:
Claim 6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a driving environment based at least in part on the telematics data; and
determining the driving score for the driver is further based at least in part on the driving environment.
Correction is requested.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,358,463 B2 (app. 18/087,095). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the instant application is broader than the claim of the patent.
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.
In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a “method” which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims are directed to the abstract idea of determining a driving score which is grouped under a method of organizing human activity.
.in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [R-10.2019]). Claims recite:
collecting “data” associated with driving behavior of a driver indicative of a hard braking event;
verifying that an unexpected action of an object is a cause of the hard braking event;
determining, based the cause of the hard braking event, a driving score for the driver indicating safe driving behavior of the driver; and
transmitting, based at least in part on the driving score and preferences of the driver, “instructions”.
Limitations such as:
(instructions) to limit texting functionality of the mobile device
are merely a description of data and does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [R-10.2019]).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application [R-07.2022]), the additional elements of the claim such as:
one or more processors from one or more sensors,
telematics data,
sensor data, and
a mobile device associated with the driver
represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than link a computerized system to the method steps corresponding to automating the acts of “collecting information, analyzing the information and providing the results of the analysis”.
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022]), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because the ordered combination does not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
The computer and computer program instructions are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, is merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities. These functionalities are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Such functions such as collecting data do not convey the specifics of the data. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Thus, viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of determining a driving score using computer technology (e.g. the processor).
Hence, claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong One). Nor are the claims directed to a practical application to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong Two).
For example, claims 2-7 are silent as to “additional elements” which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of a judicial exception, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. They merely further describe the abstract idea of determining a driving score.
Accordingly, none of the dependent claims add a technological solution to the method of organizing human activity in the independent claim.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claims 8-14 otherwise styled as a system, and claims 15-20 styled as a computer readable medium would be subject to the same analysis.
Conclusion
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
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 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 1-11, 13-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuade et al (US Pub. No. 20140379208 A1) in view of Tibbitts et al (US Pub. No. 20140113619 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, McQuade teaches incorporating data from a vehicle data bus or vehicle ECU into documents scanned or otherwise captured using mobile computing devices having document capture and/or document delivery functionality [0004]. He teaches:
collecting, at one or more processors from one or more sensors, telematics data associated with driving behavior of a driver and comprising sensor data indicative of a hard braking event – [0045]-[0047];
verifying, by the one or more processors, based at least in part on the sensor data, that an unexpected action of an object is a cause of the hard braking event – [0007], [0009] and [0012]; and
determining, by the one or more processors, based at least in part on the telematics data and the cause of the hard braking event, a driving score for the driver indicating safe driving behavior of the driver – [0052].
McQuade teaches transmitting information to mobile computing devices [0009], [0024], [0077] and [0079]. McQuade does not explicitly disclose:
transmitting, by the one or more processors to a mobile device associated with the driver, based at least in part on the driving score and preferences of the driver, instructions to limit texting functionality of the mobile device.
However, Tibbitts teaches a system and method for modifying a user's unsafe driving behaviors, e.g., using one or more services of a controllable mobile device while driving, by providing a score to the user rating indicating that they are using a mobile device in a distracting way, or driving in a manner that indicates that they are distracted [0003]. The mobile device comprises: a sensor set comprising at least one of an image sensor, an audio sensor, an accelerometer and a positioning module; a processor for processing sensor data from the sensor set to derive said driving information [Id.]. He teaches a mobile services control system, wherein the position of a mobile communication device within the vehicle is determined, and in particular, whether the "mobile device" is within a restricted zone of the vehicle, which may include, but is not limited to, the driver's seat, areas near the driver's seat, other locations within the vehicle, or in some cases, the entire vehicle occupant enclosure [0018]. The mobile services control system may be used to restrict access to mobile communication device services (e.g., texting, voice calls, games, videos, Internet access, online books, etc.) on a plurality of mobile communication devices available within a single vehicle occupant enclosure. The mobile services control system may also provide support for the correlation of data from the one or more detectors and/or sensors within the vehicle and the mobile communication device, with usage data from the service provider of the mobile communication device. The correlated data may be used for reporting on the use of mobile services while the vehicle is moving, sending notification messages and/or alerts, and/or real-time control (enable/disable) of mobile services on the mobile communication device [Id.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McQuade’s disclosure to include restricting access to mobile communication device services including texting as taught by Tibbitts because it reduces distraction to a driver due viewing and/or composing one or more non-driving related communications via the mobile communication device – Tibbitts [0014].
Regarding claim 2, McQuade teaches the telematics data as comprising a location of a vehicle operated by the driver, and determining the driving score for the driver being further based at least in part on the location - [0007] and [0052].
Regarding claims 3 and 9, McQuade teaches determining the driving score for the driver being further based at least in part on environmental data associated with an environment in which the driver is operating a vehicle - [0090].
Regarding claim 4, McQuade does not explicitly disclose determining the driving score for the driver being further based at least in part on vehicle condition data for a vehicle operated by the driver.
However, Tibbitts teaches an in-vehicle Vehicle Detection System (VDS) which includes a vehicle motion sensor to determine the operational state of the vehicle [0020].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McQuade’s disclosure to include determining the operational state of the vehicle as taught by Tibbitts since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5 and 14, McQuade teaches collecting the telematics data as comprising receiving the telematics data from the mobile device – [0012] and [0082].
Regarding claim 6, McQuade teaches:
determining a driving environment based at least in part on the telematics data – [0007], [0012] and [0017]; and
determining the driving score for the driver is further based at least in part on the driving environment – [0052].
Regarding claim 7, McQuade teaches determining the driving score for the driver being further based at least in part on vehicle usage characteristics for a vehicle operated by the driver – [0016] “shippers of perishable goods, such as food products, or other goods that can be damaged by excessive temperatures”.
Regarding claim 10, McQuade teaches determining the environmental data based at least in part on the sensor data – [0012] “exemplary types of sensors include one or more of a power take off unit actuation sensor, a stop arm actuation sensor, a snow plow actuation sensor, a door opening sensor, an emergency door opening sensor, a temperature sensor, and a door lock sensor”.
Regarding claim 11, McQuade does not explicitly disclose transmitting, based at least in part on the driving score and the preferences of the driver, additional instructions to the mobile device to present a warning to the driver.
However, Tibbitts teaches delivering a warning to the user via a Controllable Mobile Device user interface [0120].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McQuade’s disclosure to include delivering a warning via the mobile device as taught by Tibbitts since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 13, McQuade teaches transmitting, based at least in part on the driving score and the preferences of the driver, additional instructions to the mobile device to present driving directions to a location – [0007], [0013] and [0021].
Regarding claim 16, McQuade teaches the sensor data as comprising visual data, and verifying that the unexpected action of the object being the cause of the hard braking event is based at least in part on the visual data – [0012].
Regarding claim 18, McQuade teaches the telematics data as comprising braking data for a vehicle operated by the driver, and verifying that the unexpected action of the object being the cause of the hard braking event being further based at least in part on the braking data – [0009], [0012] and [0022].
Regarding claim 20, McQuade does not explicitly disclose determining the driving score for the driver is further based at least in part on data received from a third-party data source.
However, Tibbitts teaches a Service Decision System being operational to connect with the Mobile Device Service Provider (MDSP) or third-party source to receive the vehicle plus mobile detected information from the MDSP via the Vehicle Service Provider (VSP) from the Safe Driving Registration System (SDRS) where the vehicle plus mobile detected information is stored in the Safe Driving Database [0132].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McQuade’s disclosure to include third-party source to receive the vehicle plus mobile detected information as taught by Tibbitts since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuade in view of Tibbitts, in further view of Saenglongma (US Patent No. 9,396,494 B1).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, neither McQuade nor Tibbitts explicitly discloses transmitting, based at least in part on the driving score and the preferences of the driver, additional instructions to control one or more components of a vehicle operated by the driver.
However, Saenglongma teaches recites a mobile device, the hardware of which is suitable for limiting operation of the vehicle by distance and time when the mobile device is inside the vehicle unless the mobile device receives instructions from the renter to purchase carsharing insurance sufficient to operate the vehicle to a destination selected on the mobile device by the renter [col. 1 lines 40-55]. He teaches a method comprising downloading a driver score and driving limits of a renter from a cloud network and limiting operation of a vehicle not owned by the renter by the driving limits. The method additionally recites calculating carsharing insurance options to the renter based on the driver score [Id.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McQuade’s disclosure to include a mobile device suitable for limiting operation of a vehicle based on a driver score and on insurance options as taught by Saenglongma since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuade in view of Tibbitts, in further view of Kypri et al (US Patent No. 10,311,749 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Tibbitts teaches using an audio sensor to derive driving information [0003]. Neither McQuade nor Tibbitts explicitly discloses verifying that the unexpected action of the object being the cause of the hard braking event is based at least in part on the audio data.
However, Kypri teaches a vehicle event recorder mounted on a vehicle which records anomalous vehicle events [col. 2 clines 26-36]. Anomalous vehicle event types include accidents, speed limit violations, rough road events, hard maneuvering events (e.g., hard cornering, hard braking), dangerous driving events (e.g., cell phone usage, eating while driving, working too long of a shift, sleepy driving, etc.), and any other appropriate kind of anomalous vehicle events. When anomalous vehicle events occur, sensors (video recorders, audio recorders, accelerometers, gyroscopes, vehicle state sensors, GPS, etc.) record anomalous vehicle event data associated with the event. [Id.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McQuade’s disclosure to include audio recorders recording anomalous vehicle event data as taught by Kypri since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Guba et al: “Driver Identification And Data Collection Systems For Use With Mobile Communication Devices In Vehicles”, (US Pub. No. 20140335902 A1):[0056] “For example, such applications include but are not limited to: (i) controlling or limiting use of the mobile device when the vehicle is being operated (e.g. to prevent or minimize distracted driving caused by use of the mobile device within the vehicle)…”.
Johnson et al: “Driving Style Recognition Using a Smartphone as a Sensor Platform”, 2011 14th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Washington, DC, USA. October 5-7, 2011
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD J BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)270-3330. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am to 3:30 pm M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at
http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If Applicant wishes to correspond to the Examiner via email, Applicant needs to file an AUTHORIZATION FOR INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS IN A PATENT APPLICATION form. The form may be downloaded at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/EDWARD J BAIRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights