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 Arguments
Applicant’s amendment with respect to claim 29 have been fully considered. The objection of claim 29 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to new matter rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Wi-Fi password, the applicant argues that “ “stating that the hotspot "requires a
password" does not add new subject matter; it merely recites an inherent property of the disclosed in-vehicle Wi-Fi hotspot.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Requiring password is not an inherent property of Wi-Fi hotspot. The reference documents “Connect To Wi-Fi Without Password” and “How do I turn my hotspot’s password off” teaches connecting to Wi-Fi hotspot without a password.
Regarding Bluetooth discoverable mode, the applicant argues that “Bluetooth pairing always requires: 1. One device entering discoverable mode, and 2. The other device selecting it from a list of discovered devices. These are mandatory steps in the Bluetooth protocol and are therefore inherent in any system that uses Bluetooth for local communication.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. “One device entering discoverable mode” is not an inherent or mandatory step in the Bluetooth connection. The reference document “connect to non-discoverable bluetooth device” teaches connecting to a Bluetooth device when the Bluetooth device not in a discoverable mode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15, 17-20, 22-25, 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “wherein to enable the communication via Bluetooth, the
PTCD is placed in discoverable mode, and the DTCD chooses and selects the PTCD to be paired with the DTCD ”,
“wherein the local wireless hotspot by default requires a password to connect”,
“wherein:(i) if the communication is by WiFi, connecting to the wireless hotspot or telematics system connection requires a password, wherein TCD users riding in the same vehicle with the hotspot or telematics system have been supplied with the WiFi password; or (ii) if the communication is by Bluetooth, connecting to the wireless hotspot or telematics system requires a process of discoverability and selection involving the DTCD or PTCD, and only TCD users riding in the same vehicle with the hotspot or telematics system are able to successfully participate in the process of discoverability and selection required for Bluetooth connections”. The specification does not support these limitations.
Claims 2-15, 17-20 and 22-25 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites “wherein the local communication uses either password protected WiFi protocol, or alternately Bluetooth protocol requiring a process of discoverability and selection”. The specification does not support these limitations.
Claims 30-31 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 29.
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 1-15, 17-20, 22-25 and 29-31 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites limitations “determining if there is a second TCD
located within a same vehicle”, “wherein the determining that the first and the second TCDs are located within the same vehicle is performed at least in part using local communication involving the first and the at least one second TCDs, wherein the local communication is established by wireless communication, and comprises one or more of following methods: … b) communication between the DTCD and the PTCD via a local wireless WiFi (RTM) hotspot operating within the vehicle where the DTCD and the PTCD are located, wherein the DTCD and the PTCD are determined to have velocities that track within a pre-set margin of each other, wherein the DTCD and the PTCD are travelling greater than the velocity threshold,
It is not sufficient to determine the first TCD and the second TCD are located within the same vehicle using local communication involving the first and the at least one second TCDs, wherein the local communication is established by wireless communication, and comprises … b) communication between the DTCD and the PTCD via a local wireless WiFi (RTM) hotspot operating within the vehicle where the DTCD and the PTCD are located, wherein the DTCD and the PTCD are determined to have velocities that track within a pre-set margin of each other, wherein the DTCD and the PTCD are travelling greater than the velocity threshold.
For example, the first TCD is the DTCD in the first vehicle, the second TCD is the PTCD in the second vehicle. The first vehicle follows the second vehicle and both the first and second vehicles travels with the similar velocity on the same lane of highway and the first vehicle is within a short distance (a few feet) of the second vehicle.
According to claim 1, the first TCD and the second TCD are in the same vehicle, which contradicts with this example. It is not sufficient to determine if the two TCDs are in the same vehicle based on the local wifi communication and the velocities of the vehicles are within the preset margin.
Claims 2-15, 17-20 and 22-25 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “… performed using known acquaintance validation based
on one or more contact data types or one or more communication modalities determined to be in common among the first and second TCDs.” The claim 13 (dependent claim of 12) recites “wherein the
one or more contact data types include at least one of the following: a) cellular contact numbers contained in an internal address book; … and wherein if a specific contact data type associated with one of the first and the second TCDs is the same as a specific contact data type associated with the other of the first and second TCDs, then assuming that the first and second TCDs are located within the same vehicle”. The claim 14 (dependent claim of 12) recites “wherein the one or more contact data types include at least one of following: d) email addresses contained in an internal address book; … and wherein if a specific contact data type associated with one of the first and second TCDs is the same as a specific contact data type associated with the other of the first and second TCDs, then assuming that the first and second TCDs are located within the same vehicle.”. Based on these limitations of claim 12, 13 and 14, the first TCD (in vehicle A, town T for example) and the second TCD (in vehicle B, same town T for example) are within the same vehicle when the first TCD and the second TCD knows the same third person C (either has C’s phone number or C’s e-mail address in the address book).
The claim 15 (dependent claim of 12) recites “wherein the one or more communication
modalities include: g) a common IP address from which the TCS is contacted by both of the first and second TCDs; and wherein if a IP address from which the TCS is contacted for one of the first and second TCDs is the same as a IP address from which the TCS is contacted for the other of the first and second TCDs, then assuming that the first and second TCDs are located within the same vehicle.”. Based on these limitations of claim 12 and 15, the first TCD (in vehicle A, town T for example) and the second TCD (in vehicle B, same town T for example) are within the same vehicle when the first TCD and the second TCD uses the same IP address to contact the TCS.
Claims 12, 13, 14 and 15 are thus rejected.
Claims 17-20 and 22-25 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 12.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites limitations “determining if there is a second TCD
located within a same vehicle encompassing the first and second TCDs”, “wherein the determining that the DTCD and the PTCD are located within the same vehicle is performed at least in part using local communication involving the DTCD and the PTCD, wherein the local communication is established by wireless communication, wherein the local communication uses either or time-stamped velocity data associated with the registered DTCD tracks within a pre- set margin with the corresponding time-stamped GPS location data or time-stamped velocity data of the PTCD; …”.
It is not sufficient to determine the DTCD and the PTCD are located within the same vehicle using local communication involving the DTCD and the PTCD, wherein the local communication is established by wireless communication, wherein the local communication uses either
For example, the first TCD is the DTCD in the first vehicle, the second TCD is the PTCD in the second vehicle. The first vehicle follows the second vehicle and both the first and second vehicles travels with the similar velocity on the same lane of highway and the first vehicle is within a short distance (a few feet) of the second vehicle.
According to claim 29, the first TCD and the second TCD are in the same vehicle, which contradicts with this example. It is not sufficient to determine if the two TCDs are in the same vehicle based on the local wifi communication and the velicity of the vehicles are within the preset margin.
Claims 30-31 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9-10 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150017972 A1 by Osann (hereinafter Osann), in view of US 20170215055 A1 by Tang et al. (hereinafter Tang) and US 20220182483 A1 by Alsolami et al. (hereinafter Alsolami).
Regarding claim 1, Osann teaches A computerized method for controlling texting while driving,
comprising (Osann, Abstract Systems and methods are described to disable texting while driving a moving vehicle):
determining a velocity of a first Texting Capable Device (hereinafter: TCD) (Osann [0011] The
position and velocity of a person's cell phone are determined. The lateral direction of travel of the person's cell phone may also be determined. These determinations may be performed by means of the comparison of successive position queries or other means, including information obtained directly from the phone if available
[0057] the SP system determines the location and speed of a cell phone and may optionally
also determine the direction of travel of the phone.);
if the first TCD is travelling in excess of a velocity threshold, determining if there is at least a
second TCD located within a same vehicle (Osann [0011] The fact that a person is in a moving vehicle is then determined by comparing this determined velocity with a minimum velocity threshold--the "disable threshold"--for determining disablement of texting. [0014] Another object of the invention is to allow a person to text when his phone is within the "envelope" of a master phone. The envelope of a cell phone may include position information only and is therefore sometimes described herein as a "position envelope".
[0032] FIG. 1 shows the envelope for a bus including passenger cell phones and a registered master phone owned by a professional driver.
[0033] FIG. 2 shows the envelope for a car including cell phones belonging to carpool passengers and a registered master phone owned by the driver.
[0057] if the cell phone's speed is greater than the disable threshold, a determination according to step 304 will be made to decide if the cell phone is within the envelope of a master phone.);
if there is no second TCD within the same vehicle, then disabling texting for the first TCD (Osann [0057] If the speed of the cell phone exceeds the disable threshold and is not within a master phone envelope, then according to step 306 texting will be disabled for that cell phone.
[0032] FIG. 1 shows the envelope for a bus including passenger cell phones and a registered master phone owned by a professional driver.
[0033] FIG. 2 shows the envelope for a car including cell phones belonging to carpool passengers and a registered master phone owned by the driver.);
if there is at least one second TCD within the same vehicle, then determining if either the first or the second TCD is a registered Driver TCD (hereinafter: DTCD) (Osann [0015] A master phone may have an envelope and other cell phones may be described as being in the envelope of the master phone. Alternately, a group of cell phones traveling together (carpool or mass transit) may be said to have an envelope. Either way, the "envelope" is meant to encompass that of the vehicle in which persons traveling together are riding as referenced from the position of a phone or phones.
[0032] FIG. 1 shows the envelope for a bus including passenger cell phones and a registered master phone owned by a professional driver.
[0033] FIG. 2 shows the envelope for a car including cell phones belonging to carpool passengers and a registered master phone owned by the driver.
[0054] FIG. 2B, passenger phones 201 are in close proximity to master phone 202 and all phones are in communication with cell tower 203. In a similar manner to FIG. 1, a position envelope 204 is established with respect to master phone 202, that envelope encompassing passenger phones 201.
[0059] A registration sequence for a master phone according to the present invention is shown in FIG. 4. Here, in step 401 the user of a master phone registers by a communication with the SP. SP system logs the master phone user as the current active user of a master phone.); and
disabling texting for the DTCD and enabling texting for TCDs that are not DTCDs and are determined to be within the same vehicle (Osann [0057] a determination according to step 304 will be made to decide if the cell phone is within the envelope of a master phone. If however, the cell phone is within a master phone envelope, then according to step 305 texting will be allowed for that individual's cell phone.
[0032] FIG. 1 shows the envelope for a bus including passenger cell phones and a registered master phone owned by a professional driver.
[0033] FIG. 2 shows the envelope for a car including cell phones belonging to carpool passengers and a registered master phone owned by the driver.
[0059] the SP system will disable texting for the master phone user as long as he is still registered.);
wherein the TCDs that are not DTCDs and are determined to be within the same vehicle are determined to be Passenger TCDs (hereinafter: PTCDs) (Osann [0057] a determination according to step 304 will be made to decide if the cell phone is within the envelope of a master phone. If however, the cell phone is within a master phone envelope, then according to step 305 texting will be allowed for that individual's cell phone.
[0032] FIG. 1 shows the envelope for a bus including passenger cell phones and a registered master phone owned by a professional driver.
[0033] FIG. 2 shows the envelope for a car including cell phones belonging to carpool passengers and a registered master phone owned by the driver.
Abstract The position and speed of a user's cell phone are compared with that of a registered master phone. If the position and speed track that of the master phone, it is assumed that the user is a passenger and not a driver.);
Although Osann teaches the first TCD and the second TCD, the DTCD and the PTCD, wherein the determining that the first and the at least one second TCDs are located within the same vehicle is performed at least in part using position information (Osann [0014] The envelope of a cell phone may include position information only and is therefore sometimes described herein as a "position envelope". [0015] A master phone may have an envelope and other cell phones may be described as being in the envelope of the master phone. the "envelope" is meant to encompass that of the vehicle in which persons traveling together are riding as referenced from the position of a phone or phones. [0032] FIG. 1 shows the envelope for a bus including passenger cell phones and a registered master phone owned by a professional driver.
[0033] FIG. 2 shows the envelope for a car including cell phones belonging to carpool passengers and a registered master phone owned by the driver.
[0054] FIG. 2B, passenger phones 201 are in close proximity to master phone 202. [0057] a determination according to step 304 will be made to decide if the cell phone is within the envelope of a master phone. ), Osann does not explicitly teach the first TCD and the second TCD communicates position information using local communication, wherein the local communication is established by wireless communication, and comprises one or more of following methods:
a) direct communication between the first TCD and the second TCD via Bluetooth (RTM), wherein the first TCD and the second TCD are determined to have velocities that track within a pre-set margin of each other, and both the first TCD and the second TCD are travelling greater than the velocity threshold; and
Tang in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the first TCD and the second TCD communicates position information using local communication, wherein the local communication is established by wireless communication, and comprises one or more of following methods:
a) direct communication between the first TCD and the second TCD via Bluetooth (RTM) (Tang [0020] As also represented by the communications link labeled 112, the mobile telephones 102 and 104 may be capable of communicating via a short range non-cellular communications coupling, such as via a Bluetooth® or Wi-Fi link.
[0032] through GPS or other location-based technology, a mobile telephone may provide location information to another mobile telephone.
[0041] if GPS data is received as the location data 340 from the other mobile telephone and the current mobile telephone's GPS data is known, a distance calculation may be made by the action controller 334. ),
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Osann with Tang’s above teachings. The motivation is to support proximity detection of the mobile phones (Tang [0005]).
Tang does not explicitly teach wherein the first TCD and the second TCD are determined to have velocities that track within a pre-set margin of each other, and both the first device and the second device are travelling greater than the velocity threshold.
Alsolami in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the first TCD and the second TCD are determined to have velocities that track within a pre-set margin of each other, and both the first device and the second device are travelling greater than the velocity threshold (Alsolami [0057] the computing circuitry 120 may determine which of the smartphones 102-(1-M) are located in the same moving automobile based on the speed of each smartphone and a distance between each of the smartphones. In an example, if the some of the smartphones 102-(1-M) have identical speeds and distance between them is within a pre-defined limit or a threshold distance of one another or distance between them is less than other smartphones, then it may be determined that those smartphones are located in the same moving automobile.
[0056] each smartphone is represented as a node. the node is moving equal to or beyond a threshold speed limit over a pre-defined period of time.);
By modifying Osann’s teachings of the first TCD and the second TCD, the DTCD and the PTCD, wherein the determining that the first and the at least one second TCDs are located within the same vehicle is performed at least in part using position information with Tang’s teachings of the first TCD and the second TCD communicates position information using local communication, wherein the local communication is established by wireless communication, and comprises one or more of following methods:
a) direct communication between the first TCD and the second TCD via Bluetooth (RTM), and Alsolami’s teachings of wherein the first TCD and the second TCD are determined to have velocities that track within a pre-set margin of each other, and both the first TCD and the second TCD are travelling greater than the velocity threshold, the modification results in
wherein the determining that the first and the at least one second TCDs are located within the same vehicle is performed at least in part using local communication involving the first and the at least one second TCDs, wherein the local communication is established by wireless communication, and comprises one or more of following methods:
a) direct communication between the DTCD and the PTCD via Bluetooth (RTM), wherein the DTCD and the PTCD are determined to have velocities that track within a pre-set margin of each other, and both the DTCD and PTCD are travelling greater than the velocity threshold; and
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Osann as modified by Tang with Alsolami’s above teachings. The motivation is managing the mobile phone of a driver of a moving automobile (Alsolami [0005]).
Regarding claim 29, Osann teaches A computerized method for controlling texting while driving, comprising (Osann, Abstract Systems and methods are described to disable texting while driving a moving vehicle):
determining a velocity of a first Texting Capable Device (hereinafter: TCD) (Osann [0011] The
position and velocity of a person's cell phone are determined. The lateral direction of travel of the person's cell phone may also be determined. These determinations may be performed by means of the comparison of successive position queries or other means, including information obtained directly from the phone if available
[0057] the SP system determines the location and speed of a cell phone and may optionally
also determine the direction of travel of the phone.);
if the first TCD is travelling in excess of a velocity threshold, determining if there is a second TCD located within a same vehicle encompassing the first and second TCDs (Osann [0011] The fact that a person is in a moving vehicle is then determined by comparing this determined velocity with a minimum velocity threshold--the "disable threshold"--for determining disablement of texting. [0014] Another object of the invention is to allow a person to text when his phone is within the "envelope" of a master phone. The envelope of a cell phone may include position information only and is therefore sometimes described herein as a "position envelope".
[0032] FIG. 1 shows the envelope for a bus including passenger cell phones and a registered master phone owned by a professional driver.
[0033] FIG. 2 shows the envelope for a car including cell phones belonging to carpool passengers and a registered master phone owned by the driver.
[0057] if the cell phone's speed is greater than the disable threshold, a determination according to step 304 will be made to decide if the cell phone is within the envelope of a master phone.);
if there is no locatable second TCD within the same vehicle, then disabling texting for the first TCD (Osann [0057] If the speed of the cell phone exceeds the disable threshold and is not within a master phone envelope, then according to step 306 texting will be disabled for that cell phone.
[0032] FIG. 1 shows the envelope for a bus including passenger cell phones and a registered master phone owned by a professional driver.
[0033] FIG. 2 shows the envelope for a car including cell phones belonging to carpool passengers and a registered master phone owned by the driver.);
if there is at least one locatable second TCD within the same vehicle, then determining if either of the first or second TCDs is a Driver TCD (hereinafter:DTCD) having previously been registered as a Driver TCD (Osann [0015] A master phone may have an envelope and other cell phones may be described as being in the envelope of the master phone. Alternately, a group of cell phones traveling together (carpool or mass transit) may be said to have an envelope. Either way, the "envelope" is meant to encompass that of the vehicle in which persons traveling together are riding as referenced from the position of a phone or phones.
[0032] FIG. 1 shows the envelope for a bus including passenger cell phones and a registered master phone owned by a professional driver.
[0033] FIG. 2 shows the envelope for a car including cell phones belonging to carpool passengers and a registered master phone owned by the driver.
[0054] FIG. 2B, passenger phones 201 are in close proximity to master phone 202 and all phones are in communication with cell tower 203. In a similar manner to FIG. 1, a position envelope 204 is established with respect to master phone 202, that envelope encompassing passenger phones 201.
[0059] A registration sequence for a master phone according to the present invention is shown in FIG. 4. Here, in step 401 the user of a master phone registers by a communication with the SP. SP system logs the master phone user as the current active user of a master phone.); and
disabling texting for the DTCD, and enabling texting for the TCD that is not a DTCD and is determined to be within the same vehicle (Osann [0057] a determination according to step 304 will be made to decide if the cell phone is within the envelope of a master phone. If however, the cell phone is within a master phone envelope, then according to step 305 texting will be allowed for that individual's cell phone.
[0032] FIG. 1 shows the envelope for a bus including passenger cell phones and a registered master phone owned by a professional driver.
[0033] FIG. 2 shows the envelope for a car including cell phones belonging to carpool passengers and a registered master phone owned by the driver.
[0059] the SP system will disable texting for the master phone user as long as he is still registered.);
wherein the TCD that is not a DTCD and is determined to be within the same vehicle is determined to be a Passenger TCD (hereinafter: PTCD) (Osann [0057] a determination according to step 304 will be made to decide if the cell phone is within the envelope of a master phone. If however, the cell phone is within a master phone envelope, then according to step 305 texting will be allowed for that individual's cell phone.
[0032] FIG. 1 shows the envelope for a bus including passenger cell phones and a registered master phone owned by a professional driver.
[0033] FIG. 2 shows the envelope for a car including cell phones belonging to carpool passengers and a registered master phone owned by the driver.
Abstract The position and speed of a user's cell phone are compared with that of a registered master phone. If the position and speed track that of the master phone, it is assumed that the user is a passenger and not a driver.);
Although Osann teaches the first TCD and the second TCD, the DTCD and the PTCD, the registered DTCD, wherein the determining that the DTCD and the PTCD are located within the same vehicle is performed at least in part using location information (Osann [0014] The envelope of a cell phone may include position information only and is therefore sometimes described herein as a "position envelope". [0015] A master phone may have an envelope and other cell phones may be described as being in the envelope of the master phone. the "envelope" is meant to encompass that of the vehicle in which persons traveling together are riding as referenced from the position of a phone or phones. [0032] FIG. 1 shows the envelope for a bus including passenger cell phones and a registered master phone owned by a professional driver.
[0033] FIG. 2 shows the envelope for a car including cell phones belonging to carpool passengers and a registered master phone owned by the driver.
[0054] FIG. 2B, passenger phones 201 are in close proximity to master phone 202. [0057] a determination according to step 304 will be made to decide if the cell phone is within the envelope of a master phone.),
GPS location data and velocity data are time stamped and used to determine if the PTCD is within the same vehicle of the DTCD (Osann Claim 1: comparing time stamped information parameters for the master phone envelope with time stamped information parameters for the at least a second cell phone; determining that at least a location and velocity of the at least a second cell phone places the at least a second cell phone within the envelope of the master phone. [0015] A master phone may have an envelope and other cell phones may be described as being in the envelope of the master phone. the "envelope" is meant to encompass that of the vehicle in which persons traveling together are riding as referenced from the position of a phone or phones. [0032] FIG. 1 shows the envelope for a bus including passenger cell phones and a registered master phone owned by a professional driver.
[0033] FIG. 2 shows the envelope for a car including cell phones belonging to carpool passengers and a registered master phone owned by the driver.),
the PTCD within the same vehicle of the DTCD is allowed to text (Osann [0057] a determination according to step 304 will be made to decide if the cell phone is within the envelope of a master phone. If however, the cell phone is within a master phone envelope, then according to step 305 texting will be allowed for that individual's cell phone. 0015] A master phone may have an envelope and other cell phones may be described as being in the envelope of the master phone. the "envelope" is meant to encompass that of the vehicle in which persons traveling together are riding as referenced from the position of a phone or phones. [0032] FIG. 1 shows the envelope for a bus including passenger cell phones and a registered master phone owned by a professional driver. ).
Osann does not explicitly teach the first TCD and the second TCD communicates location information using local communication involving the first TCD and the second TCD, wherein the local communication is established by wireless communication, wherein the local communication uses either
wherein the first TCD queries the second TCD via the local communication by supplying GPS location data or velocity data associated with the first TCD;
wherein the second TCD responds to indicate whether or not GPS location data or velocity data associated with the first TCD tracks within a pre- set margin with the corresponding GPS location data or velocity data of the second TCD; and
wherein if the second TCD respond positively, it is confrmed that the second TCD responding positively is within the same vehicle as the first TCD.
Tang in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the first TCD and the second TCD communicates location information using local communication involving the first TCD and the second TCD, wherein the local communication is established by wireless communication, wherein the local communication uses either WiFi protocol, or alternately Bluetooth protocol (Tang [0020] As also represented by the communications link labeled 112, the mobile telephones 102 and 104 may be capable of communicating via a short range non-cellular communications coupling, such as via a Bluetooth® or Wi-Fi link.
[0032] through GPS or other location-based technology, a mobile telephone may provide location information to another mobile telephone.);
performed using one or more queries with respect to GPS location data or velocity data (Tang [0032] through GPS or other location-based technology, a mobile telephone may provide location information to another mobile telephone.):
wherein the first TCD queries the second TCD via the local communication by supplying GPS location data or velocity data associated with the first TCD (Tang [0032] through GPS or other location-based technology, a mobile telephone may provide location information to another mobile telephone.);
wherein the second TCD responds to indicate whether or not GPS location data or velocity data associated with the first TCD tracks within a pre- set margin with the corresponding GPS location data or velocity data of the second TCD (Tang [0041] if GPS data is received as the location data 340 from the other mobile telephone and the current mobile telephone's GPS data is known, a distance calculation may be made by the action controller 334. If the computed distance is below a certain threshold, a notification may be output.); and
wherein if the PTCD respond positively (Tang [0041] If the computed distance is below a certain threshold, a notification may be output.
[0004] a notification to indicate that the other mobile computing device has been detected within a threshold proximity.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Osann with Tang’s above teachings. The motivation is to support proximity detection of the mobile phones (Tang [0005]).
Tang does not explicitly teach wherein GPS location data associated with the first TCD tracks within a pre- set margin with the corresponding GPS location data of the second TCD, the second TCD is within the same vehicle as the first TCD.
Alsolami in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein GPS location data associated with the first TCD tracks within a pre- set margin with the corresponding GPS location data of the second TCD, the second TCD is within the same vehicle as the first TCD (Alsolami [0057] the computing circuitry 120 may determine which of the smartphones 102-(1-M) are located in the same moving automobile based on the speed of each smartphone and a distance between each of the smartphones. In an example, if the some of the smartphones 102-(1-M) have identical speeds and distance between them is within a pre-defined limit or a threshold distance of one another or distance between them is less than other smartphones, then it may be determined that those smartphones are located in the same moving automobile.).
By modifying Osann’s teachings of the first TCD and the second TCD, the DTCD and the PTCD, the registered DTCD, wherein the determining that the DTCD and the PTCD are located within the same vehicle is performed at least in part using location information, GPS location data and velocity data are time stamped and used to determine if the PTCD is within the same vehicle of the DTCD, the PTCD within the same vehicle of the DTCD is allowed to text with
Tang’s teachings of the first TCD and the second TCD communicates location information using local communication involving the first TCD and the second TCD, wherein the local communication is established by wireless communication, wherein the local communication uses either WiFi protocol, or alternately Bluetooth protocol; performed using one or more queries with respect to GPS location data or velocity data: wherein the first TCD queries the second TCD via the local communication by supplying GPS location data or velocity data associated with the first TCD; wherein the second TCD responds to indicate whether or not GPS location data or velocity data associated with the first TCD tracks within a pre- set margin with the corresponding GPS location data or velocity data of the second TCD; and wherein if the PTCD respond positively, and
Alsolami’s of teachings of wherein GPS location data associated with the first TCD tracks within a pre- set margin with the corresponding GPS location data of the second TCD, the second TCD is within the same vehicle as the first TCD, the modification results in
wherein the determining that the DTCD and the PTCD are located within the same vehicle is performed at least in part using local communication involving the DTCD and the PTCD, wherein the local communication is established by wireless communication, wherein the local communication uses either
wherein the registered DTCD queries the PTCD via the local communication by supplying time-stamped GPS location data or time-stamped velocity data associated with the registered DTCD;
wherein the PTCD responds to indicate whether or not the time-stamped GPS location data or time-stamped velocity data associated with the registered DTCD tracks within a pre-set margin with the corresponding time-stamped GPS location data or time-stamped velocity data of the PTCD; and
wherein if the PTCD responds positively, it is confrmed that the PTCD responding positively is within the same vehicle as the registered DTCD and is therefore allowed to text.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Osann as modified by Tang with Alsolami’s above teachings. The motivation is managing the mobile phone of a driver of a moving automobile (Alsolami [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Osann in view of Tang and Alsolami (hereinafter combination) discloses The
computerized method of claim 1.
Osann teaches wherein confirming, that the DTCD and the PTCD are both located
within the same vehicle is performed by comparing time-stamped GPS location data (Osann [0006] Cell phones in use today already contain GPS location capability as part of the emergency response network. The ability to query the location of cell phone from a central location using the GPS receiver in a cell phone is useful for many purposes, and for the purposes of this invention is useful to determine both the location and the velocity of a person according to the position and speed of lateral movement of his cell phone.
Claim 1: comparing time stamped information parameters for the master phone envelope with time stamped information parameters for the at least a second cell phone; determining that at least a location and velocity of the at least a second cell phone places the at least a second cell phone within the envelope of the master phone.
[0015] A master phone may have an envelope and other cell phones may be described as being in the envelope of the master phone. the "envelope" is meant to encompass that of the vehicle in which persons traveling together are riding as referenced from the position of a phone or phones. [0032] FIG. 1 shows the envelope for a bus including passenger cell phones and a registered master phone owned by a professional driver.
[0033] FIG. 2 shows the envelope for a car including cell phones belonging to carpool passengers and a registered master phone owned by the driver.).
Osann does not explicitly teach GPS data is passed locally among the DTCD and the PTCD using local communication.
Tang teaches GPS data is passed locally among the DTCD and the PTCD using local communication (Tang [0020], [0032] and [0041] cited in claim 1 rejection).
By modifying Osann’s teachings of wherein confirming, that the DTCD and the PTCD are both located within the same vehicle is performed by comparing time-stamped GPS location data with Tang’s teachings of GPS data is passed locally among the DTCD and the PTCD using local communication, the modification results in where confirming, using the local communication, that the DTCD and the PTCD are both located within the same vehicle is performed by comparing time-stamped GPS location data passed via the local communication among the DTCD and the PTCD.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Tang’s above teachings. The motivation is to support proximity detection of the mobile phones (Tang [0005]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses The computerized method of claim 1.
Osann does not explicitly teach wherein neither the DTCD nor the PTCDs transmit their GPS
coordinates to the TCS.
Tang teaches wherein neither the DTCD nor the PTCDs transmit their GPS coordinates to the TCS (Tang [0020] As also represented by the communications link labeled 112, the mobile
telephones 102 and 104 may be capable of communicating via a short range non-cellular communications coupling, such as via a Bluetooth® or Wi-Fi link.
[0032] through GPS or other location-based technology, a mobile telephone may provide location information to another mobile telephone.
[0041] if GPS data is received as the location data 340 from the other mobile telephone and the current mobile telephone's GPS data is known, a distance calculation may be made by the action controller 334.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Tang’s above teachings. The motivation is to support proximity detection of the mobile phones (Tang [0005]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses The computerized method of claim 1, wherein
determining that the first and the second TCDs are in the same vehicle.
Osann does not explicitly teach performed by an app installed in the first and second TCDs, or alternately by a software program integrated with a TCD operating system controlling the first or second TCDs.
Tang teaches performed by an app installed in the first and second TCDs, or alternately by a
software program integrated with a TCD operating system controlling the first or second TCDs (Tang [0020] As also represented by the communications link labeled 112, the mobile telephones 102 and 104 may be capable of communicating via a short range non-cellular communications coupling, such as via a Bluetooth® or Wi-Fi link.
[0032] through GPS or other location-based technology, a mobile telephone may provide location information to another mobile telephone.
[0041] Also represented in FIG. 3 is an action controller 334, which in general uses the data received from the other phone's communication module to decide whether to take action or not (or what type of action) based on some calculation. For example, if GPS data is received as the location data 340 from the other mobile telephone and the current mobile telephone's GPS data is known, a distance calculation may be made by the action controller 334. If the computed distance is below a certain threshold, a notification may be output; (as described above, the type and/or settings of the notification may be varied based on different threshold measurements). ).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Tang’s above teachings. The motivation is to support proximity detection of the mobile phones (Tang [0005]).
Claim 30 recites similar limitations of claim 6, is thus rejected under similar rational.
Regarding claim 9, the combination discloses The computerized method of claim 1.
Osann teaches wherein the first and second TCDs communicate with the one or more
TCSs by way of different cellular carriers and/or different cell towers (Osann Fig. 7, [0038] FIG. 7 shows multiple cell phones traveling within the same vehicle where each cell phone is serviced by a different service provider.
[0076] FIG. 7 where three individuals have cell phones 701, 703, and 705, each serviced by a different service provider. Phone 701 is serviced by provider 702, phone 703 by provider 704, and phone 705 by provider 706. In this example, the user of phone 701 has registered that phone is a master phone with provider 702. ).
Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses The computerized method of claim 1, wherein confirming using the local communication among the DTCD and the PTCD that the DTCD and the PTCD are located within the same vehicle,
Osann teaches the first TCD and the second TCD, the DTCD and the PTCD, the registered DTCD, wherein the determining that the DTCD and the PTCD are located within the same vehicle is performed at least in part using location information (Osann [0014] The envelope of a cell phone may include position information only and is therefore sometimes described herein as a "position envelope". [0015] A master phone may have an envelope and other cell phones may be described as being in the envelope of the master phone. the "envelope" is meant to encompass that of the vehicle in which persons traveling together are riding as referenced from the position of a phone or phones. [0032] FIG. 1 shows the envelope for a bus including passenger cell phones and a registered master phone owned by a professional driver.
[0033] FIG. 2 shows the envelope for a car including cell phones belonging to carpool passengers and a registered master phone owned by the driver.
[0054] FIG. 2B, passenger phones 201 are in close proximity to master phone 202. [0057] a determination according to step 304 will be made to decide if the cell phone is within the envelope of a master phone.),
GPS location data and velocity data are time stamped and used to determine if the PTCD is within the same vehicle of the DTCD (Osann Claim 1: comparing time stamped information parameters for the master phone envelope with time stamped information parameters for the at least a second cell phone; determining that at least a location and velocity of the at least a second cell phone places the at least a second cell phone within the envelope of the master phone. [0015] A master phone may have an envelope and other cell phones may be described as being in the envelope of the master phone. the "envelope" is meant to encompass that of the vehicle in which persons traveling together are riding as referenced from the position of a phone or phones. [0032] FIG. 1 shows the envelope for a bus including passenger cell phones and a registered master phone owned by a professional driver.
[0033] FIG. 2 shows the envelope for a car including cell phones belonging to carpool passengers and a registered master phone owned by the driver.),
the PTCD within the same vehicle of the DTCD is allowed to text (Osann [0057] a determination according to step 304 will be made to decide if the cell phone is within the envelope of a master phone. If however, the cell phone is within a master phone envelope, then according to step 305 texting will be allowed for that individual's cell phone. 0015] A master phone may have an envelope and other cell phones may be described as being in the envelope of the master phone. the "envelope" is meant to encompass that of the vehicle in which persons traveling together are riding as referenced from the position of a phone or phones. [0032] FIG. 1 shows the envelope for a bus including passenger cell phones and a registered master phone owned by a professional driver. ).
Osann does not explicitly teach performed using one or more queries with respect to GPS location or velocity data;
wherein the first TCD queries the second TCD via the local communication by providing GPS location data or velocity data associated with the first TCD;
wherein the second TCD responds to indicate whether or not the GPS location data or the velocity data associated with the first TCD tracks within a pre-set margin with the corresponding GPS location data or the velocity data of the second TCD; and
wherein if the second TCD responds positively, it is confirmed that the second TCD responding positively is within the same vehicle as the first TCD and is therefore allowed to text.
Tang teaches performed using one or more queries with respect to GPS location or velocity data (Tang [0032] through GPS or other location-based technology, a mobile telephone may provide location information to another mobile telephone);
wherein the first TCD queries the second TCD via the local communication by providing GPS location data or velocity data associated with the first TCD (Tang [0032] through GPS or other location-based technology, a mobile telephone may provide location information to another mobile telephone.);
wherein the second TCD responds to indicate whether or not the GPS location data or the velocity data associated with the first TCD tracks within a pre-set margin with the corresponding GPS location data or the velocity data of the second TCD (Tang [0041] if GPS data is received as the location data 340 from the other mobile telephone and the current mobile telephone's GPS data is known, a distance calculation may be made by the action controller 334. If the computed distance is below a certain threshold, a notification may be output); and
wherein if the second TCD responds positively (Tang [0041] If the computed distance is below a certain threshold, a notification may be output.
[0004] a notification to indicate that the other mobile computing device has been detected within a threshold proximity.),
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Tang’s above teachings. The motivation is to support proximity detection of the mobile phones (Tang [0005]).
Tang does not explicitly teach wherein GPS location data associated with the first TCD tracks within a pre- set margin with the corresponding GPS location data of the second TCD, the second TCD is within the same vehicle as the first TCD.
Alsolami teaches wherein GPS location data associated with the first TCD tracks within a pre- set margin with the corresponding GPS location data of the second TCD, the second TCD is within the same vehicle as the first TCD (Alsolami [0057] the computing circuitry 120 may determine which of the smartphones 102-(1-M) are located in the same moving automobile based on the speed of each smartphone and a distance between each of the smartphones. In an example, if the some of the smartphones 102-(1-M) have identical speeds and distance between them is within a pre-defined limit or a threshold distance of one another or distance between them is less than other smartphones, then it may be determined that those smartphones are located in the same moving automobile.).
By modifying Osann’s teachings of the first TCD and the second TCD, the DTCD and the PTCD, the registered DTCD, wherein the determining that the DTCD and the PTCD are located within the same vehicle is performed at least in part using location information, GPS location data and velocity data are time stamped and used to determine if the PTCD is within the same vehicle of the DTCD, the PTCD within the same vehicle of the DTCD is allowed to text with
Tang’s teachings of performed using one or more queries with respect to GPS location or velocity data;
wherein the first TCD queries the second TCD via the local communication by providing GPS location data or velocity data associated with the first TCD;
wherein the second TCD responds to indicate whether or not the GPS location data or the velocity data associated with the first TCD tracks within a pre-set margin with the corresponding GPS location data or the velocity data of the second TCD; and
wherein if the second TCD responds positively, and
Alsolami’s teachings of wherein GPS location data associated with the first TCD tracks within a pre- set margin with the corresponding GPS location data of the second TCD, the second TCD is within the same vehicle as the first TCD, the modification results in
wherein confirming using local communication among the DTCD and the PTCD, that the DTCD and the PTCD are located within the same vehicle, is performed using one or more queries with respect to time-stamped GPS location or velocity data;
wherein the registered DTCD queries the PTCD via the local communication by providing time-stamped GPS location data or time-stamped velocity data associated with the registered DTCD;
wherein the PTCD responds to indicate whether or not the time-stamped GPS location data or the time-stamped velocity data associated with the registered DTCD tracks within a pre-set margin with the corresponding time-stamped GPS location data or the time-stamped velocity data of the PTCD; and
wherein if the PTCD responds positively, it is confirmed that the PTCD responding positively is within the same vehicle as the registered DTCD and is therefore allowed to text.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Alsolami’s above teachings. The motivation is managing the mobile phone of a driver of a moving automobile (Alsolami [0005]).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osann in view of Tang and Alsolami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20080064446 A1 by Camp et al. (hereinafter Camp).
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses The computerized method of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein determining the velocity of the first TCD
is performed remotely from the first TCD by monitoring a strength of a signal transmitted from the first TCD as received at one or more cell towers.
Camp in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein determining the velocity of the first TCD is performed remotely from the first TCD by monitoring a strength of a signal transmitted from the first TCD as received at one or more cell towers (Camp [0068] Referring now to FIG. 6A, there is provided a flow chart 80 showing exemplary steps for determining a velocity of a mobile phone 16 based on a Doppler shift of signals 18 transmitted between the mobile phone 16 and the tower 12.
[0070] Due to the motion of the phone 16 relative to the tower 12, the tower 12 will detect the signal with an additional Doppler shift, causing the detected signal 18b to appear even lower in frequency (e.g., 9.8 MHz), as indicated at block 92. Using conventional techniques, the data corresponding to the Doppler shift can be used to calculate a velocity of the mobile phone 16, as indicated at block 94. The calculation may be performed by the network 14. ).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Camp’s above teachings. The motivation is safely operating a mobile communication device in a vehicle (Camp [0001]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination discloses The computerized method of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein determining the velocity of the first
TCD is performed by determining a velocity parameter within the first TCD, wherein the velocity parameter is transmitted from the first TCD to the Texting Control Servers (TCS).
Camp in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein determining the velocity of the
first TCD is performed by determining a velocity parameter within the first TCD, wherein the velocity parameter is transmitted from the first TCD to the Texting Control Servers (TCS) (Camp [0068]Referring now to FIG. 6A, there is provided a flow chart 80 showing exemplary steps for determining a velocity of a mobile phone 16 based on a Doppler shift of signals 18 transmitted between the mobile phone 16 and the tower 12.In establishing a communication link, signals 18 are exchanged between the tower 12 and the mobile phone 16. As indicated at block 82, the signal frequency transmitted by the tower 12 is at a predetermined frequency, such as 10 MHz, for example. Due to motion of the mobile phone 16 relative to the tower 12, a Doppler shift is introduced, and the frequency of the signal 18a as perceived by the mobile phone 16 is different from the transmitted frequency, as indicated at block 84. The exact frequency depends on the velocity of the mobile phone 16 relative to the tower 12.
[0070] Using conventional techniques, the data corresponding to the Doppler shift can be used to calculate a velocity of the mobile phone 16. The calculation may be performed by the mobile phone 16.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Camp’s above teachings. The motivation is safely operating a mobile communication device in a vehicle (Camp [0001]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osann in view of Tang and Alsolami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20100191674 A1 by Condon (hereinafter Condon).
Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses The computerized method of claim 1.
Although Osann teaches wherein when a user attempts to register a DTCD, and if the associated
user is not a licensed driver then registration is disallowed (Osann [0059] the user of a master phone registers by a communication with the SP. [0055] The owner of a master phone must have a valid driver's license.), Osann does not explicitly teach an identity of the user associated with the DTCD is queried in a drivers license database and verified.
Condon in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches an identity of the user associated with the DTCD is queried in a drivers license database and verified (Condon [0054] The license verification module 114 may also query state driver's license databases and match up driver's licenses against Department of Public Safety data to confirm evidence of a valid license. The license verification module 114 confirms the driver is licensed. ).
By modifying Osann’s teachings of wherein when a user attempts to register a DTCD, and if the associated user is not a licensed driver then registration is disallowed with Condon’s teachings of an identity of the user associated with the DTCD is queried in a drivers license database and verified, the modification results in
wherein when a user attempts to register a DTCD, an identity of the user associated with the DTCD is queried in a drivers license database, and if the associated user is not a licensed driver then registration is disallowed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Condon’s above teachings. The motivation is verifying driver’s license (Condon [0054]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osann in view of Tang and Alsolami as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 20180041518 A1 by Jacobs et al. (hereinafter Jacobs).
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses The computerized method of claim 2.
Although the combination teaches wherein confirming, using local communication, that
the first and at least second TCDs are both located within the same vehicle, is performed using comparing time-stamped GPS location or velocity data passed locally among at least the first and second TCDs (See claim 2 rejection), the combination does not explicitly teach performing known acquaintance validation involving the first and second TCDs.
Jacobs in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches performing known acquaintance validation involving the first and second TCDs (Jacobs [0039] the disclosed authentication/verification techniques may be implemented in any embodiment in which a location of a purported user can be determined and compared with a determined location of one or more known associates of the user.
[0042] system 100 may include one or more authentication/verification systems 110, one or more location awareness systems 120, one or more client devices 130, one or more users 131, a known associate network 140 including one or more known associates 140a-c, such as a “trusted” or “primary” associate 140a, “secondary” associate 140b, or “rule” based associate 140c, and a communication network 150.
[0043] Client device 130 may be a ..., smartphone.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Jacobs’s above teachings. The motivation is improving system and conserving resources (Jacobs [0036]).
Claim(s) 11 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osann in view of Tang and Alsolami as applied to claim 1 and 29 above, and further in view of US 20160270025 A1 by Osann (hereinafter Osann2), US 20130212659 A1 by Maher et al. (hereinafter Maher) and US 20190215399 A1 by Simon (hereinafter Simon).
Regarding claim 11, the combination discloses The computerized method of claim 2.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein a telematics system is located in the
vehicle; wherein the telematics system is aware that the vehicle in which the telematics system resides has self-driving capability; and wherein for a time period where the vehicle is in a self-driving mode, the telematics system is considered to be the DTCD for the purpose of enabling texting for all TCDs in the vehicle.
Osann2 in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein a telematics system is located
in the vehicle (Osann2 [0116] FIG. 19 shows a vehicle 1902 that includes a telematics system 1904 and where one of the cell phones within the vehicle may have been registered as a master phone 1906. Passenger phone 1920 communicates with SP1 and also via hotspot 1918 with telematics system 1904. Phone 1906 can also communicate with telematics system 1904.);
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Osann2’s above teachings. The motivation is blocking texting in moving vehicles with telematics system (Osann2 [0032]).
Osann2 does not explicitly teach wherein the telematics system is aware that the vehicle in which the telematics system resides has self-driving capability.
Maher in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the telematics system is aware that the vehicle in which the telematics system resides has self-driving capability (Maher [0048] the vehicle 100 may include a telematics system 106. The telematics system 106 may perform a variety of functions. In certain embodiments, the telematics system 106 may be communicatively coupled with a Global Positioning System ("GPS") transceiver 114 configured to communicate with and receive location information from a satellite navigation system 116.
[0049] the telematics system 106 and/or another system may be coupled to radar, optical, photographic and/or other sensors to monitor and process information regarding the immediate surroundings of the vehicle and use this information to facilitate automatic and/or assisted steering and acceleration of the vehicle (e.g., a self-driving or driverless vehicle). ); and
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination as modified by Osann2 with Maher’s above teachings. The motivation is to facilitate trusted communication between entities including telematics in the vehicle (Maher [0006-0007]).
Maher does not explicitly teach wherein for a time period where the vehicle is in a self-driving mode, the telematics system is considered to be the DTCD for the purpose of enabling texting for all TCDs in the vehicle.
Simon in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein for a time period where the vehicle is in a self-driving mode, the telematics system is considered to be the DTCD for the purpose of enabling texting for all TCDs in the vehicle (Simon [0180] Level 3 is an automated system in which within known, limited environments (such as freeways), the driver can safely turn their attention away from driving tasks. Level 4 is an automated system that can control the vehicle in all but a few environments such as severe weather. The driver must enable the automated system only when it is safe to do so. When enabled, driver attention is not required. Level 5 is an automated system in which other than setting the destination and starting the system, no human intervention is required. The automatic system can drive to any location where it is legal to drive.
[0070] consider the following example where a person is registering texting on device 702, while device 702 is the position of driver seat 104 within vehicle 102 and while device 702 is in a vehicle mode.
[0197] if it is determined that the user of the device is the driver of the vehicle (Yes at S1404), it is then determined whether the vehicle is operating in an autonomous mode (S1406).
[0198] In the case of a Level 4 automated vehicle, autonomous controller 1610 may determine that vehicle 1500 is autonomously operating while performing all functions in all but a few environments such as severe weather.
[0199] if it is determined that the vehicle is operating in an autonomous mode (Yes at S1406), it is then determined whether compromised driving is permitted (S1408).
[0201] if is determined that compromised driving is permitted (Yes at S1408), then method 1400 again determines if vehicle 1500 remains in an automated mode (return to S1406).
Claim 9, The method of claim 8, further comprising: enabling, via a texting component, a user to perform at least one of creating an outgoing text and accessing a received text. ).
By modifying Osann2’s teachings of wherein a telematics system is located in the vehicle with Maher’s teachings of wherein the telematics system is aware that the vehicle in which the telematics system resides has self-driving capability, and Simon’s teachings of wherein for a time period where the vehicle is in a self-driving mode, the telematics system is considered to be the DTCD for the purpose of enabling texting for all TCDs in the vehicle, the modification results in
wherein a telematics system is located in position envelope; wherein the telematics system is aware that a vehicle in which the telematics system resides has self-driving capability; and wherein for a time period where the vehicle is in a self-driving mode, the telematics system is considered to be the DTCD for the purpose of enabling texting for all TCDs in the position envelope.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination as modified by Osann2 and Maher with Simon’s above teachings. The motivation is improving safe driving (Simon [0004-0005]).
Claim 31 recites similar limitations of claim 11, is thus rejected under similar rational.
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 David Z Sun whose telephone number is (571)270-0750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800am-0500pm.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at 571-272-9617. 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.
/D.Z.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights