DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 09/30/2025. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 have been amended. Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 have been cancelled. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are pending examination. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 as amended overcome the 35 USC 103 rejection. As such the independent claims are allowable. The dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18-20 are allowable due to their dependence on allowable subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner finds it moot. After further search and consideration the examiner would rely on the newly cited portions the previously cited art Menig (US PG Pub 2001/0012976) to teach the amended limitations. Applicant has significantly amended claims 1, 8, and 15 as such the explanation of Menig’s relevance will be brief. Menig teaches an integrated messaging system for a vehicle that can receive vehicle sensor data and generate a message related to the most important data sensed. These messages have a prioritization scheme that ensures that the message of most importance is displayed as prominently as possible. Menig clearly teaches independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and they would be rejected as such. The dependent claims would be rejected at least due to their dependence on the rejected independent claims. For a further detailed explanation see the section below titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102,” and “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "identifying most significant data" in the second limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant can amend the claim to recite, “identifying a most significant data” to overcome this limitation. Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale. Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18-20 would be rejected due to the dependence on rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Menig (US PG Pub 2001/0012976).
Regarding claim 1, Menig teaches a method performed by a processor of a transport, ([0049] teaches a transport, i.e. vehicle, having an internal processor to carry out instructions. This is described as an “ICU” which control messages for the display of a vehicle) the method comprising:
receiving sensor data from a sensor of the transport as the transport moves along a route; ([0025]-[0026], and [0033] teach a series of sensors installed on the vehicle that collect data on vehicle operation. [0038] teaches a series of data links that are used to convey sensor information to the ICU from a plurality of sensors and vehicles ECUs containing sensors)
identifying most significant data (MSD) from the sensor data, wherein the MSD is associated with a condition of the transport; ([0064]-[0065] teach a series of prioritization schemes. These schemes are used to determine what is the most important data collected. [0075]-[0077] and Table 2. Further teach that the system can identify what collected information is most important based on the prioritization scheme, this would be analogous to the most significant data)
generating a message comprising the MSD and bits identifying the MSD as one or more of critical or safety-related; ([0046] teaches a message generation scheme wherein each message has a different priority. The messages also have a number of associated bits that are used to help convey their importance. Figs. 5-8 and [0070]-[0075] and Figs. 9-10 and [0079]-[0084] teach the system as able to generate a message for the display of the vehicle based on the received sensor information. This generated message includes the most significant data, i.e. low oil pressure, and information identifying the message as critical or safety related.
displaying the MSD on a display of the transport, (Figs. 5-8 and 9; and [0070]-[0075] and [0079]-[0084] teach the displaying of the MSD on the display of a transport) wherein the bits control the display to enhance a prominence of the MSD on the display; ([0075]-[0077] teach the system having a message prioritization scheme that ensures that the highest priority message is always displayed as prominently as possible. [0080] further teaches that “the message center displays progressively stronger visual warnings,” this would indicate that the MSD has gained some form of prominence on the display)
identifying that subsequently received data from the sensor indicates a worsening of the condition; ([0080]-[0082] teach an example of a forward collision. As the sensor determines that a vehicle ahead of the ego vehicle is getting closer the system determines that the risk of collision is increasing, this would be analogous to the worsening of a vehicle condition. [0024]-[0026] teach monitoring of an engine for potential conditions, these conditions are used to generate messages based on their severity) and
in response to the worsening of the condition, perform an additional enhancement of the prominence of the MSD. ([0080]-[0082] teaches that as a condition worsens the displayed message can be enhanced in additional ways, i.e. including audio alerts, or increasing the size of the message. [0067] and Table 1 further teach the other vehicle alerts may have differing audio alerts associated with them. These alerts would enhance an MSD message in some way)
Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar and would be rejected based on the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 4, Menig teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the additional enhancement comprises an audible alert. ([0067]-[0068] and [0079]-[0080] teaches an audio alert used by the system to enhance the alert)
Claims 11 and 18 are substantially similar and would be rejected based on the same rationale as recited above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 9, 12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menig in view of Dagci (US PG Pub 2007/0001830).
Regarding claim 2, Menig teaches the method of claim 1.
Menig does not teach displaying a warning related to an anticipated future environment along the route.
However, Dagci teaches, “displaying a warning related to an anticipated future environment along the route.” (Fig. 6 and [0043] teach the device displaying an anticipated future environment, in this case it will display an upcoming reduction of speed)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Menig with Dagci; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to vehicle message displays. As Menig teaches the system can display collision alerts and other alerts about soon to occur events, but lacks a future event message. Dagci [0043] teaches an explicit message about a future event, i.e. speed limit change. The presentation of such an event along the route early allows the driver an optimal amount of time to react/prepare for such an event.
Claims 9 and 16 are substantially similar and would be rejected based on the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 5, Menig teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising maintaining a minimal distance to proximate transports ([0003] and [0034] teach the maintaining of a set-distance between proximate vehicles traveling in an environment)
Menig does not teach when a performance of the transport is unchanged for a period of time greater than a threshold
However, Dagci teaches “when a performance of the transport is unchanged for a period of time greater than a threshold.” (Fig. 2 and [0027] teach a constant monitoring of a vehicle performance, the performance monitoring includes checking the speed of the vehicle at predetermined time periods)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Menig with Dagci; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to vehicle message displays. As Menig teaches in [0003] and [0034] the vehicles have a cruise control that adapts to the position of the vehicle in front. This ensures that a collision does not occur. The use of Dagci shows a system that can also continually monitor the performance of the vehicle. As taught in [0027] of Dagci, the regular checking of vehicle performance ensures that some condition does not slip past the operator. This ensures safe and effective travel.
Claim 12 is substantially similar and would be rejected based on the same rationale as recited above.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menig and Dagci in view of Li (US Pat 11,498,580).
Regarding claim 6, Menig teaches the method of claim 1.
Menig does not teach limiting an operation of the transport when a performance of the transport is unchanged for a predetermined period of time.
However, Dagci teaches “when a performance of the transport is unchanged for a predetermined period of time.” (Fig. 2 and [0027] teach a constant monitoring of a vehicle performance, the performance monitoring includes checking the speed of the vehicle at predetermined time periods)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Menig with Dagci; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to vehicle message displays. As Menig teaches in [0003] and [0034] the vehicles have a cruise control that adapts to the position of the vehicle in front. This ensures that a collision does not occur. The use of Dagci shows a system that can also continually monitor the performance of the vehicle. As taught in [0027] of Dagci, the regular checking of vehicle performance ensures that some condition does not slip past the operator. This ensures safe and effective travel.
The combination of Menig and Dagci does not teach limiting an operation of the transport.
However, Li teaches “limiting operation of the transport” (Col. 5, lines 46-59; teach preventing operation of a vehicle system if there is a lack of control for a time period)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Menig and Dagci with Li; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of vehicles and vehicle systems. Li may be used to configure vehicle display alerts and provide control actions to alter the control of the vehicle, Abstract. As seen in Li, Col. 2, lines 5-25; the use of time period monitoring and preventing some actions to take place may allow the vehicle to be controlled in both an accurate and unobtrusive way. This would allow for smart control of the vehicle and prevent the vehicle form being controlled in an unsafe manner.
Claims 13 and 19 are substantially similar and would be rejected based on the same rationale as recited above.
Claim(s) 7, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menig and Dagci in view of Rothschild (US PG Pub 2007/0067086).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Menig and Dagci teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Menig and Dagci does not teach providing an alternate route for the transport on the display.
However, Rothschild teaches “providing an alternate route for the transport on the display.” (Fig. 6 and [0047] teach displaying an alternate route on the display of a transport)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Menig and Dagci with and Rothschild; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the displaying of vehicle information as it transits a route. All relate to graphical control of displays; this control could include the displaying of alerts. The display of an alternate route would enable a vehicle to travel around congestion or other issues.
Claims 14 and 20 are substantially similar and would be rejected based on the same rationale as recited above.
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 NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665