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 .
Double Patenting
A 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 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-15, 17-18, and 20-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,399,016 to Ghanbari et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant application claims 1-8 and 11-18 are anticipated by the limitations of patented claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-15, 17-18, and 20-21.
It is well settled that the omission of an element/limitation and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each occurrence of the word “house-of-service” should be changed to “hours-of-service” to correct clerical or typographical errors. Appropriate corrections are 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 inventions are directed to one or more abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a system which is in the machine category of the four statutory categories. The claim as drafted, is a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the recited limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, such as one or more hardware processors. Nothing in the claim precludes each of the steps performed by each of these units from practically being performed in the human mind. The steps may be described as mere data gathering and mental analysis in conjunction with an abstract idea.
But for the recitation of one or more hardware processors, the step of: obtain, by the one or more hardware processors, a fleet-specific vehicle operator performance function that has been determined by aggregating performance information pertaining to driver performance during trips for the set of vehicle operators, wherein the fleet-specific vehicle operator performance function varies as a function of time spent driving by the set of vehicle operators during a given trip such that the fleet-specific vehicle operator performance at the start of the given trip is greater than the fleet-specific vehicle operator performance at the end of the given trip, corresponds to merely data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity also known as pre-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The foregoing recitation is equivalent to a person obtaining or receiving performance expectation data or information of the driver or operator based on his previous historical performance data. The data that is gathered will be used to determine a driver’s performance during a trip.
The step of: during a first trip of the first vehicle operator in the first vehicle, continuously determine a first set of metric values for a first set of driver performance metrics pertaining to the first vehicle operator, wherein the first set of metric values is associated with a first amount of time currently spent driving so far by the first vehicle operator during the first trip such that the first set of metric values is updated over time during the first trip; may be performed in one’s mind. The foregoing step is equivalent to the person evaluating the driver’s performance by way of a mental rating or value during the trip, based on how the driver performs during the trip, and updating the rating or value over time.
The step of: during the first trip, continuously determine a rate of change for the first set of metric values during the first trip; during the first trip, continuously extrapolate the first set of metric values for the first vehicle operator based on the rate of change for the first set of metric values and a remaining duration as scheduled for the first trip may be performed in one’s mind. The foregoing step is equivalent to the person continuously assessing or evaluating driver changes and/or a rate of change in the performance ratings or values for the driver during the trip based on how the driver performs during the trip and forecasting or extrapolating what he believes the ratings or values will do over time.
The step of: during the first trip, compare the first set of metric values as extrapolated against the fleet-specific vehicle operator performance function, may also be performed in one’s mind. The foregoing step is equivalent to the person mentally comparing the extrapolated ratings or values to the performance expectation data based on the driver’s performance so far during the trip.
The step of: and during the first trip, take a specific action, based on the comparison, amounts to merely transmitting a notification, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity also known as post-solution activity. Such post-solution extra-solution activities are incidental to the primary process or product and are merely nominal or tangential additions to the claim (see MPEP at 2106.05(g)). Examiner notes that claims 2-3, for example, disclose that the specific action comprises the transmission of one or more notifications.
The mere nominal recitation of one or more hardware processors does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. The claim limitations do not require any particular level of accuracy or precision, so nothing in the claim elements preclude these processes from practically being performed in the mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because each of the limitations are recited at a high level of generality. There is nothing implemented to technologically improve the functionality of what is recited in claim 1. The judicial exception does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more. The claim fails to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In other words, the limitations of independent claim 1 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
In summary, with respect to the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106), independent claim 1 falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention which satisfies STEP 1 (i.e., a machine). Claim 1 covers performance of one or more limitations in the human mind which constitutes a mental process, which may include an observation, evaluation, judgment, assessment and/or opinion, for example. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea which satisfies STEP 2A (Prong 1). Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application which does not satisfy STEP 2A (Prong 2). Furthermore, with regard to STEP 2B, the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activities, such as pre-solution data gathering activities and/or the transmission of one or more notifications as recited in claim 1, corresponds to one or more well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept is not present.
Since claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites limitations of a mental process, without integrating the limitations into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more, it is ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims fall into the mental processes grouping as each of them depends on independent claim 1 and the additional limitations recited in each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 11 includes the same limitations as recited in claim 1, except it claims a method which is directed to the steps recited in independent claim 1. The same argument as stated above for claim 1 applies to independent claim 11 because claim 11 covers similar mental functions recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 12-20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims fall into the mental processes grouping as each of them depends on independent claim 11 and the additional limitations recited in each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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.
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 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terwilliger et al. (US 2018/0093672) in view of Mitchell (US 2012/0256770).
Regarding claim 1, Terwilliger teaches a system configured for using fleet-specific vehicle operator performance for a set of vehicle operators, wherein the fleet-specific vehicle operator performance is specific to the set of vehicle operators of a fleet of vehicles, wherein the fleet of vehicles is operated by the set of vehicle operators including multiple vehicle operators, wherein the fleet of vehicles includes a first vehicle operated by a first vehicle operator, the system comprising: one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: (see Terwilliger at [0023] which discloses that information handling systems may be adapted to provide services to vehicles, to fleets of vehicles, and/or to drivers of vehicles and that such information handling systems may be particularly useful in the trucking industry, where historically little modernization has occurred. Examiner maps drivers of vehicles to a set of vehicle operators. Terwilliger at [0024] in conjunction with Fig. 1 discloses a vehicle illustrating an installed gateway for communicating with electronic components in or around the vehicle according to one embodiment of the disclosure; Terwilliger at [0033] further discloses that the vehicle gateway may be used to track a driver's behavior and determine a driver's condition and that the vehicle gateway may monitor driver awareness (e.g., through in-cab eye-tracking, head position detection) and driver heart rate (e.g., through a heart rate sensor in a driver's smart watch or a pulse sensor integrated with the steering wheel) and that the vehicle gateway may monitor driver driving time. Examiner maps driver’s condition and/or driving time, for example, to fleet-specific operator performance. Terwilliger at [0042] further discloses that the operations described above as performed by a gateway, beacon, or electronic device may be performed by any circuit configured to perform the described operations. Terwilliger at [0042] further discloses that the logic circuitry may be configured as a general purpose processor capable of executing instructions contained in software and that if implemented in firmware and/or software, functions described above may be stored as one or more instructions or code on a computer-readable medium. Examiner maps general purpose processor capable of executing instructions to one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions.)
obtain, by the one or more hardware processors, a fleet-specific vehicle operator performance function that has been determined by aggregating performance information pertaining to driver performance during trips for the set of vehicle operators, wherein the fleet- specific vehicle operator performance function varies as a function of time spent driving by the set of vehicle operators during a given trip such that the fleet-specific vehicle operator performance at the start of the given trip is greater than the fleet-specific vehicle operator performance at the end of the given trip; (see Terwilliger at [0008] for example, which discloses that a vehicle gateway may monitor driving conditions and/or a planned truck route to determine when a different engine firmware may provide better fuel efficiency or other benefits and then update the engine firmware with an appropriate firmware; see Terwilliger at [0033] which discloses that long runs of time while requiring close attention to many variables can tire a driver, that this may lead to retention difficulty of drivers, and greater physical and mental health issues for drivers, and that further, tired drivers may be more likely to make mistakes that may cause vehicle collisions or that may cause a driver to move wrong cargo to a wrong location, and that the vehicle gateway may monitor driver driving time; Examiner maps runs of time to time spent driving. Also, see Terwilliger at [0037] which discloses that the vehicle gateway may determine an average number of lane departures for a driver based on historical data and then determine if a recent number of departures exceeds the average number by more than a threshold amount, and that regardless of the average number, the driver may be determined as fatigued if the recent number of departures exceeds a certain predetermined threshold. Examiner may map driver driving time and/or historical average number of lane departures to the fleet-specific vehicle operator performance function. Examiner notes that historical driver driving time would monitor how efficient the driver is completing a drive. Examiner further notes that the average number of lane departures would vary (i.e., increase) as the trip duration varies (i.e., increases) as the driver gets tired; thus the fleet-specific vehicle operator performance varies as a function of trip duration; see Terwilliger at [0034-0035] which discloses that data may be collected by the vehicle gateway from one or more sources through one or more input device and that the vehicle gateway 610 may use the collected driver information to determine a condition of the driver; Examiner notes that collecting data by the vehicle gateway to determine a condition of the driver from one or more sources corresponds to aggregating performance information in the trip information. Examiner notes that long runs tire a driver and tired drivers are likely to make mistakes to cause collisions. This corresponds to a vehicle operating performance function varying as a function of time spent driving by the fleet-specific vehicle operator during a given trip. Examiner references the specification at [0036] which discloses that “Performance function 40a may represent the performance of a particular vehicle operator over an 8-hour trip.” Thus, the term “performance function” equates to “performance”. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of the specification. Also, see Terwilliger at [0040] which discloses that information regarding recent operation may be compared to a supervisor's expected norms or regulated norms, that some regulations may specify that a driver may not operate a vehicle for more than eight straight hours, and the engine uptime determined from an engine computer or user's mobile device may indicate when the eight-hour regulation is exceeded, and as yet another example, information regarding recent operation by the driver may be compared to averages obtained from a fleet of vehicles, and that an average number of lane departures may be determined for any ten-minute interval across a fleet of vehicles, and when a driver has more lane departures than that average number, the driver may be determined to be fatigued. For at least what is disclosed in Terwilliger at [0040] alone, the Examiner has shown a teaching of aggregating performance information pertaining to driver performance during trips for the set of vehicle operators, wherein the fleet-specific vehicle operator performance varies as a function of time spent driving by the set of vehicle operators during a given trip such that the fleet-specific vehicle operator performance at the start of the given trip is greater than the fleet-specific vehicle operator performance at the end of the given trip. Examiner notes that one aspect of the driver or operator performance relates to fatigue and that the driver or operator gets tired as a function of time. Thus, the performance of the driver is best at the start of the trip compared to the end of the given trip.)
during a first trip of the first vehicle operator in the first vehicle, continuously determine a first set of metric values for a first set of driver performance metrics pertaining to the first vehicle operator, wherein the first set of metric values is associated with a first amount of time currently spent driving so far by the first vehicle operator during the first trip such that the first set of metric values is updated over time during the first trip; during the first trip, compare the first set of metric values as extrapolated against the fleet-specific vehicle operator performance function; (see Terwilliger at [0036] which discloses that driving information regarding gear shifting may be received from an engine computer, driver information regarding lane departures may be received from a lane departure detection system, driver information regarding awareness may be received from an eye-tracking system, driver information regarding sleep health may be received from a user's mobile device, driver information regarding heart rate may be received from a user's smartwatch, and/or driver information regarding a driver's work schedule may be received from an engine computer or the driver's mobile device. Examiner notes that the foregoing driving information, such as gear shifting, lane departures, information regarding awareness from an eye-tracking system and/or sleep health, heart rate, driver’s work schedule, corresponds to various sets of metric values. Terwilliger at [0036] further discloses that, at block 704, a condition of the driver may be determined based on the received driver information of block 702. Terwilliger further discloses that the driver condition may be determined by comparing current sensor data, a current driver action, and/or recent driver actions with the driver's habits determined at block 702 and that for example, block 704 may include determining an amount of time the driver slept over a recent time period and then determining if the sleep time is over a threshold amount that would indicate that the driver has received sufficient rest and that the threshold amount may be determined, in part, based on the driver's habits, such as average number of hours of sleep per night. Examiner notes that comparing current sensor data, a current driver action, and/or recent driver actions corresponds to continuously determining a first set of metric values for a first set of driver performance metrics. Examiner further notes that the driver condition is updated because current data is obtained. See Terwilliger at [0037] which discloses receiving information regarding habits of a driver from a lane departure detection system and that the received information may be an indication of an average number of lane departures by the driver over a particular historical time period and that the vehicle gateway may determine an average number of lane departures for a driver based on historical data and then determine if a recent number of departures exceeds the average number by more than a threshold amount. Examiner notes that a particular historical time period may be mapped to a first scheduled work trip duration. See Terwilliger at [0037] which discloses that the vehicle gateway may determine an average number of lane departures for a driver based on historical data and then determine if a recent number of departures exceeds the average number by more than a threshold amount. Regardless of the average number, the driver may be determined as fatigued if the recent number of departures exceeds a certain predetermined threshold. Examiner maps recent lane departures and/or recent driver actions to a first set of metric values for a first set of driver performance metrics pertaining to the first vehicle operator wherein the first set of metric values is associated with a first amount of time spent driving by the first vehicle operator during the first trip. Examiner notes that recent driver actions may include recent sleep time, for example. Examiner notes that the term recent corresponds to or is associated with a first amount of time. Examiner maps historical average number of lane departures to the fleet-specific vehicle operator performance. Examiner notes that to be able to determine whether the recent number of departures exceeds the average number by than a threshold amount, a comparison is made between the historical average and the recent number of the lane departures made by a driver or vehicle operator.)
during the first trip, take a specific action, based on the comparison (see Terwilliger at [0037] which discloses that for example, an alert may be displayed to the driver suggesting the driver stop operating the vehicle and that referring back to FIG. 6, an alert may be displayed on dashboard 622. Furthermore, Terwiliger at [0037] discloses that as another example, an alert may be transmitted to a remote server for a supervisor to review. Examiner maps any one of the foregoing alerts to the specific action.)
Terwillinger does not expressly disclose during the first trip, continuously determine a rate of change for the first set of metric values during the first trip; during the first trip, continuously extrapolate the first set of metric values for the first vehicle operator based on the rate of change for the first set of metric values and a remaining duration as scheduled for the first trip; which in a related art, Mitchell teaches (see Mitchell, at [0066] in conjunction with Fig. 6B, which discloses that as shown in FIG. 6B, the analyzed historical event data for each operational metric 302 shows trend data 362, for example, the performance of a vehicle/driver over the 6 month period, for example, a mileage trend 362b, a speeding trend, 362d and an idling trend 362a for each month, that as shown in FIG. 6C, the trend data 362 for each operational metric can then be extrapolated from the GPS event data, that this trend data is extrapolated for each vehicle in a fleet, as well as for each employee, and can be used in conjunction with other databases to provide trending and statistical data as described herein. Mitchell further discloses that trend data includes not only the direction in which performance and behavior move under operational metrics, but also identifiable changes in those movements and comparisons therebetween, as well as statistical data drawn from GPS data and other databases, as described herein. Examiner maps trend data illustratively depicted in conjunction with Figs. 6BC to a rate of change of the first set of metric values.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Terwilliger to include during the first trip, continuously extrapolate the first set of metric values for the first vehicle operator based on the rate of change for the first set of metric values and a remaining duration as scheduled for the first trip, as taught by Mitchell.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification such that data can be analyzed for each month to identify statistics for each operational metric, for example, for each vehicle or employee, as well as to derive statistic for the fleet (e.g. averages under each operational metric, or averages for defined groups under each metric), as suggested by Mitchell at [0065].
Regarding claim 2, the modified Terwilliger teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the specific action includes electronically transferring one or more notifications to one or more of a client computing platform associated with the first vehicle operator, to a stakeholder of the fleet of vehicles, and/or to a remote computing server (see Terwilliger at [0033] which discloses that if the driver's behavior indicates certain deficiencies in their wellness or fitness to operate the vehicle, the vehicle gateway may cause alerts to be presented (e.g., through a visual display or audible announcement) to the driver; see Terwilliger at [0037] which discloses that the vehicle gateway generates an alert indicating the driver is fatigued and needs a break. Terwilliger at [0037] discloses that, for example, an alert may be displayed to the driver suggesting the driver stop operating the vehicle and that referring back to FIG. 6, an alert may be displayed on dashboard 622, and that as another example, an alert may be transmitted to a remote server for a supervisor to review. Examiner maps displaying of an alert to generating one or more notifications. Examiner notes that the Applicant has used the phrase “and/or” in the claimed language. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has held that use of the phrase “and/or” within a claim is not indefinite. According to the PTAB, “and/or” is not wrong, but it’s not preferred verbiage (see Ex Parte Gross, Appeal No. 2011-004811). Nevertheless, during patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification (see MPEP § 2111; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Based upon this guidance from the MPEP and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the Examiner interprets the phrase “and/or” under its broadest reasonable interpretation of “or” for purposes of examination of the instant Application.)
Regarding claim 3, the modified Terwilliger teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the specific action further includes presenting the one or more notifications on one or more user interfaces associated with one or more of the client computing platform of the first vehicle operator, the stakeholder of the fleet of vehicles, and/or the remote computing server (see Terwilliger at [0033] which discloses that if the driver's behavior indicates certain deficiencies in their wellness or fitness to operate the vehicle, the vehicle gateway may cause alerts to be presented (e.g., through a visual display or audible announcement) to the driver; see Terwilliger at [0037] which discloses that, for example, an alert may be displayed to the driver suggesting the driver stop operating the vehicle and that referring back to FIG. 6, an alert may be displayed on dashboard 622, and that as another example, an alert may be transmitted to a remote server for a supervisor to review. Examiner maps visual display or dashboard to the one or more user interfaces. Examiner notes that the Applicant has used the phrase “and/or” in the claimed language. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has held that use of the phrase “and/or” within a claim is not indefinite. According to the PTAB, “and/or” is not wrong, but it’s not preferred verbiage (see Ex Parte Gross, Appeal No. 2011-004811). Nevertheless, during patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification (see MPEP § 2111; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Based upon this guidance from the MPEP and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the Examiner interprets the phrase “and/or” under its broadest reasonable interpretation of “or” for purposes of examination of the instant Application.)
Regarding claim 4, the modified Terwilliger teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the performance information represents one or more metric values for one or more driver performance metrics for individual vehicle operators in the set of vehicle operators (see Terwilliger at [0034-0035] which discloses that data may be collected by the vehicle gateway from one or more sources through one or more input device and that the vehicle gateway 610 may use the collected driver information to determine a condition of the driver; see Terwilliger at [0036] which discloses that driving information regarding gear shifting may be received from an engine computer, driver information regarding lane departures may be received from a lane departure detection system, driver information regarding awareness may be received from an eye-tracking system, driver information regarding sleep health may be received from a user's mobile device, driver information regarding heart rate may be received from a user's smartwatch, and/or driver information regarding a driver's work schedule may be received from an engine computer or the driver's mobile device. Terwilliger further discloses that, at block 704, a condition of the driver may be determined based on the received driver information of block 702. Terwilliger further discloses that the driver condition may be determined by comparing current sensor data, a current driver action, and/or recent driver actions with the driver's habits determined at block 702 and that for example, block 704 may include determining an amount of time the driver slept over a recent time period and then determining if the sleep time is over a threshold amount that would indicate that the driver has received sufficient rest and that the threshold amount may be determined, in part, based on the driver's habits, such as average number of hours of sleep per night. Examiner maps any one of the foregoing driving/driver information or data to the one or more metric values for one or more driver performance metrics pertaining to the individual vehicle operator throughout the individual trip duration in the individual vehicle.)
Regarding claim 5, the modified Terwilliger teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the performance information for a first particular trip is based at least in part on a first set of vehicle events that have been detected during the first particular trip of a first particular vehicle, wherein detection of the first set of vehicle events is based on output signals generated by a set of sensors that are carried by the first particular vehicle (see Terwilliger at [0007] which discloses that the gateway may couple to one or more input devices to receive sensor data; see Terwilliger at [0008] which discloses that as a further example, a vehicle gateway may monitor driving conditions and/or a planned truck route; see Terwilliger at [0031] for example, which discloses that the gateway 510 may be configured with wireless or wired communication input devices to receive data from vehicle sensors 512; Examiner notes that vehicle sensors output signals. Also, see Terwilliger at [0033] for example, which discloses that the vehicle gateway may monitor driver awareness (e.g., through in-cab eye-tracking, head position detection) and driver heart rate (e.g., through a heart rate sensor in a driver's smart watch or a pulse sensor integrated with the steering wheel) and as another example, the vehicle gateway may monitor driver driving behavior (e.g., through lane departure systems or through speed variations); see Terwilliger at [0034] which discloses that data may be collected by the vehicle gateway from one or more sources through one or more input devices; see Terwilliger at [0037] regarding a lane departure detection system. Examiner maps the planned truck route to the first particular trip of a first particular vehicle. Examiner maps a first set of one or more of in-cab eye-tracking, head position detection in-cab eye-tracking, head position detection, lane departure detection, for example, to a first set of vehicle events that have been detected.)
Regarding claim 6, the modified Terwilliger teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the performance information for the second particular trip is based at least in part on operator attentiveness of a second particular vehicle operator, wherein determination of the operator attentiveness is based on output signals captured by one or more cameras configured to capture image information of the second particular vehicle operator during operation of a second particular vehicle during the second particular trip (see Terwilliger at [0025] which discloses that the gateway 102 may be further coupled to other electronic devices, such as a road-facing camera 124 and/or an eye-tracking system 126, by either wireless or wired connections similar to that described in the examples above and that the eye-tracking system 126 may be used to monitor eye movement of a driver, which can provide information regarding, for example, the driver's alertness; see Terwilliger at [0026] in conjunction with Fig. 1 which depicts the camera 124 and the tracking system 126; also see Terwilliger at [0034] which discloses that a vehicle gateway 610 may receive information from biometric sensing devices, such as an eye-watching system, camera (e.g., to view head or body position and movement), pulse sensor, microphone (e.g., to listen for breathing, depth and speed of respiration, or to listen to driver answers to voice prompts), a mobile phone, and/or a smart watch. Examiner maps driving’s alertness to operator attentiveness. See Segal at the Abstract which discloses a method and apparatus for identifying and validating vehicle operators to multiple electronic systems, such as fleet management centers and electronic monitoring systems, in a communication system, that the invention is particularly useful in the commercial trucking industry where multiple electronic applications require the identification of a vehicle operator, that each vehicle operator in the communication system is preassigned a unique identification code which is used to request a login or logoff from the validation system, and that a database of all vehicle operator identification codes is stored at a central station. Also, see Segal at col. 2 lines 1-11 which discloses a vehicle operator operating a second vehicle and a second vehicle operator might then begin operating the first vehicle; see Segal at col. 3 lines 5-16 which discloses that a vehicle operator may log onto a second vehicle; Examiner notes that a first vehicle operator and a second vehicle operator may operate a first vehicle as well as a second vehicle and each of the first vehicle operator and the second vehicle operator may take a second trip.)
Regarding claim 8, the modified Terwilliger teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the fleet of vehicles includes a second vehicle operated by a second vehicle operator and a third vehicle operated by a third vehicle operator, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to: during a second trip of the second vehicle operator, continuously determine a second set of metric values for a second set of driver performance metrics pertaining to the second vehicle operator; during the second trip, continuously determine a second rate of change for the second set of metric values; during the second trip, continuously extrapolate the second set of metric values based on the second rate of change for the second set of metric values; during the second trip, perform a second comparison of the second set of metric values as extrapolated against the fleet-specific vehicle operator performance function; during a third trip of the third vehicle operator, continuously determine a third set of metric values for a third set of driver performance metrics pertaining to the third vehicle operator; during the third trip, continuously determine a third rate of change for the third set of metric values; during the third trip, continuously extrapolate the third set of metric values based on the third rate of change for the third set of metric values; and during the third trip, perform a third comparison of the third set of metric values as extrapolated against the fleet-specific vehicle operator performance function (see Terwilliger at [0039] which discloses that information from multiple drivers is combined such that a routing map may be generated for a fleet of vehicles and drivers based on the learned driver habits; furthermore, see Mitchell at [0003] which discloses that a computer system including at least one computer processor and computer readable storage medium is programmed to analyze the GPS event data to derive a plurality of operational metrics for each of a plurality of vehicles; see Mitchell at [0043], for example, which discloses that a graphic user interface can be configured to display including a representation of at least one operational metric for each of a plurality of vehicles; see Mitchell at [0064] which discloses that the GPS event data is analyzed to derive a plurality of operational metrics for each of a plurality of vehicles; and identify, from the analysis, at least one trend for a GPS event history using the GPS event data. Examiner maps a plurality of vehicles to the first, second, and third vehicles. Examiner directs the Applicant to the teachings provided in the rejection of claim 1 since the cited portions of the references used in the rejection of claim 1 with respect to the first vehicle operator identically teach the steps performed for each of the second and third vehicle operators, respectively.)
Regarding claim 9, the modified Terwilliger teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to: during the second trip, take a second action based on the second comparison; and during the third trip, take a third action based on the third comparison (see Terwilliger at [0037] which discloses use of historical data over a historical time period. Examiner notes that the historical data corresponds to successive trips such as first, second, and third trips. Terwilliger, at [0036], further discloses that the driver condition may be determined by comparing current sensor data, a current driver action, and/or recent driver actions with the driver's habits determined at block 702 and that for example, block 704 may include determining an amount of time the driver slept over a recent time period and then determining if the sleep time is over a threshold amount that would indicate that the driver has received sufficient rest and that the threshold amount may be determined, in part, based on the driver's habits, such as average number of hours of sleep per night. Examiner notes that comparing current sensor data, a current driver action, and/or recent driver actions corresponds to continuously determining a first set of metric values for a first set of driver performance metrics. Also, see Terwilliger at [0037] which discloses that for example, an alert may be displayed to the driver suggesting the driver stop operating the vehicle and that referring back to FIG. 6, an alert may be displayed on dashboard 622. Furthermore, Terwiliger at [0037] discloses that as another example, an alert may be transmitted to a remote server for a supervisor to review. Examiner maps any one of the foregoing alerts to the first, second, and third actions.)
Regarding claim 10, the modified Terwilliger teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the second action includes electronically transferring a second notification that includes house-of-service (HOS) information pertaining to the second vehicle operator, and wherein the third action includes electronically transferring a third notification that includes house-of-service (HOS) information pertaining to the third vehicle operator (see Terwilliger at [0037] which discloses that for example, an alert may be displayed to the driver suggesting the driver stop operating the vehicle and that referring back to FIG. 6, an alert may be displayed on dashboard 622 and as another example, an alert may be transmitted to a remote server for a supervisor to review. Furthermore, Terwiliger at [0038] discloses that a vehicle gateway receiving information regarding sleep habits of a driver of a vehicle from the driver's mobile device and/or other sensors through the input devices (e.g., reports of engine operating times from the engine computer, reports of user's head position from a camera) and that the habits may include, for example, the driver’s average number of hours driven without a break over the past month. Examiner maps driver’s average number of hours driven without a break over the past month to hours-of-service (HOS) information pertaining to any number of vehicle operators. Examiner notes that data, such as driver’s average number of hours driven may be received by a gateway and that data comprises one or more notifications, such as second and a third notifications.)
Claims 11-16 and 18-20 are directed toward a method that performs the steps recited in the system of claims 1-6 and 8-10. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejections of claims 1-6 and 8-10 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the method of claims 11-16 and 18-20. Therefore, claims 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons as stated for claims 1-6 and 8-10 above.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terwilliger et al. (US 2018/0093672) in view of Mitchell (US 2012/0256770) and further in view of Segal et al. (US 6,108,591).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Terwilliger does not expressly disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the performance information for a third particular trip and of a third particular vehicle operator during the third particular trip, which, in a related art, Segal teaches (see Segal at the Abstract which discloses a method and apparatus for identifying and validating vehicle operators to multiple electronic systems, such as fleet management centers and electronic monitoring systems, in a communication system, that the invention is particularly useful in the commercial trucking industry where multiple electronic applications require the identification of a vehicle operator, that each vehicle operator in the communication system is preassigned a unique identification code which is used to request a login or logoff from the validation system, and that a database of all vehicle operator identification codes is stored at a central station; see Segal at col. 2 lines 15-20 which disclose that the present invention is a method and apparatus for identifying and validating vehicle operators to one or more electronic systems and that one or more fleet management centers can communicate with their respective vehicles and vice-versa through the central station. Examiner notes that identifying and validating multiple vehicle operators to multiple (or one or more) electronic systems and that one or more fleet management centers can communicate with their respective vehicles corresponds to validating the performance of at least a third vehicle operator for at least a third trip in at least a third vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Terwilliger to include the performance information for a third particular trip and of a third particular vehicle operator during the third particular trip, as taught by Segal.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to identify and validate a vehicle operator to more than one electronic system as suggested by Segal at col. 1 lines 6-10.
The modified Terwilliger further teaches:
is based on a combination of detected vehicle events and determined operator attentiveness [of a third particular vehicle operator during the third particular trip] (see Terwilliger at [0025] which discloses that the gateway 102 may be further coupled to other electronic devices, such as a road-facing camera 124 and/or an eye-tracking system 126, by either wireless or wired connections similar to that described in the examples above and that the eye-tracking system 126 may be used to monitor eye movement of a driver, which can provide information regarding, for example, the driver's alertness; see Terwilliger at [0026] in conjunction with Fig. 1 which depicts the camera 124 and the tracking system 126; see Terwilliger at [0033] for example, which discloses that the vehicle gateway may monitor driver awareness (e.g., through in-cab eye-tracking, head position detection) and driver heart rate (e.g., through a heart rate sensor in a driver's smart watch or a pulse sensor integrated with the steering wheel) and as another example, the vehicle gateway may monitor driver driving behavior (e.g., through lane departure systems or through speed variations); also see Terwilliger at [0034] which discloses that a vehicle gateway 610 may receive information from biometric sensing devices, such as an eye-watching system, camera (e.g., to view head or body position and movement), pulse sensor, microphone (e.g., to listen for breathing, depth and speed of respiration, or to listen to driver answers to voice prompts), a mobile phone, and/or a smart watch. Examiner maps driver’s alertness to operator attentiveness.)
Claim 17 recites a method that performs the steps recited in the system of claim 7. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claim 7 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the method of claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROY RHEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights