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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 26, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on February 26, 2026. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claim 10 has been canceled. Claims 1-9 and 11-22 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant's Amendments dated February 26, 2026, Examiner withdraws the previous prior art rejections and the nonstatutory double patent rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 26, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to ATA 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0130916 (hereinafter, "Mayer”; previously of record), in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0171793 (hereinafter, "Kim"; previously of record), and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0254543 (hereinafter, "Engelhard"; newly of record).
Regarding claim 1, Mayer discloses an apparatus structured to be disposed onboard a vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a parameter acquisition circuit structured to interpret a plurality of vehicle parameter values (“a data processing module 34 that processes the received data” (para 0114)), responsive to the at least one requested vehicle property (“the RDS server 30 then filters and reports the requested items in modified messages M2* to each respective user which each contain only the information items requested by that user” (para 0097)), from a plurality of providing end points (“collecting raw data from the various vehicle sensors and operational components” (para 0076)), each of the plurality of providing end points on at least one network zone of a vehicle (“ The parameters needed to determine such a condition would stem from vehicle components that are nodes (or message sources) on the vehicle network(s) that the RDU 20 is connected to via CAN bus 18” (para 0119)); and
a vehicle data transmission circuit structured to selectively transmit at least a portion of collected vehicle data (“active vehicles transmit a partial data status message M2 containing selected CAN and GPS information items to the RDS” (para 0126));
However, Mayer does not explicitly teach
a policy acquisition circuit structured to interpret a vehicle policy data value comprising at least one requested vehicle property;
wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to selectively transmit the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data by selecting a bandwidth utilization for the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data in response to a historical transmission availability for the vehicle.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
a policy acquisition circuit structured to interpret a vehicle policy data value comprising at least one requested vehicle property (“an apparatus for processing a plurality of logging policies and a method thereof, and more particularly, to techniques for processing a plurality of logging policies without having mutual collision in collecting vehicle data (e.g., sensor data, control data, network data, etc.)” (para 0002) and “a logging policy input section configured to receive a plurality of logging policies for use with vehicle data” (para 0007)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mayer with the teachings of Kim in order to selectively collect the vehicle data based on a logging policy; see Kim at least at [0004];
Engelhard, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to selectively transmit the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data (“different priorities may be set for at least two data packets to regulate the transfer of data and different transmission times may be set for the two data packets based on these priorities..., the data transmission can be readily regulated automatically” (para 0015)) by selecting a bandwidth utilization for the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data in response to a historical transmission availability for the vehicle (“determining the estimated transmission bandwidth depending on the expected utilization” (claim 15) and “The geo-database provides historical values that were actually observed in the past at the respective location and at the corresponding times. These values can be used to make predictions about the transmission bandwidth expected to be available, at least one data transmission between the mobile terminal and the at least one data network, i.e. at least one data exchange process, is regulated depending on the transmission bandwidth expected to be available” (para 0007)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mayer with the teachings of Engelhard in order to smoothly exchange data via available transmission bandwidth by analyzing the historical values associated with the wireless interface; see Engelhard at least at [0007].
Regarding claim 2, Mayer discloses and the combination of Kim and Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Additionally, Mayer discloses wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to selectively transmit the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data (“active vehicles transmit a partial data status message M2 containing selected CAN and GPS information items to the RDS” (para 0126)) by selecting a transmission interval for the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data (“the partial data status message need only be sent at time intervals T2” (para 0126)).
Regarding claim 3, Mayer discloses and the combination of Kim and Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 2. Additionally, Mayer discloses wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to select the transmission interval in response to at least one of:
an interval provided in the vehicle policy data value (“creates an event window of a predetermined time interval about the time stamp, and selects a portion of the logged data falling within the predetermined time interval” (para 0017));
an interval responsive to an availability description for transmitting resources for the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data (“During these intervals, in addition to any communications associated with keeping the wireless link up, the processor 24 may send additional real time vehicle data” (para 0082));
an interval responsive to a historical transmission availability for the vehicle; or
an operating condition of the vehicle (“transmit one or more predetermined status messages or vehicle data to the backend or server side of the system at predetermined intervals” (para 0082) and “the data logging system includes a communication module which communicates with engine and other vehicle components over a communication channel or bus to receive data from the vehicle components” (para 0016)).
Regarding claim 4, Mayer discloses and the combination of Kim and Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 2. Additionally, Mayer discloses wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to select the transmission interval in response to an interval responsive to a priority of the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data (“creates an event window of a predetermined time interval about the time stamp, and selects a portion of the logged data falling within the predetermined time interval” (para 0017) and “at time interval T2 (e.g., every 60 seconds). Alternately, this initial message may automatically, under certain specified conditions, be transmitted for one or more selected vehicles at a high data rate T1 (e.g., every 200 milliseconds). For example, when the vehicle is selected by a user at the backend, or when a fault or failure condition is recognized for that vehicle, the RDU 20 may automatically begin transmitting at the high rate T1.” (para 0099)).
Regarding claim 6, Mayer discloses and the combination of Kim and Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 4. Additionally, Mayer discloses wherein the priority relates to transmission of collected data (“elected" vehicle 3 is in a higher priority of communication than "non-selected" vehicles 2” (para 0058)).
Regarding claim 11, Mayer discloses and the combination of Kim and Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Mayer does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to select the bandwidth utilization further in response to at least one of:
a bandwidth utilization provided in the vehicle policy data value;
a bandwidth utilization responsive to a priority of the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data;
a bandwidth utilization responsive to an availability description for transmitting resources for the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data; or
an operating condition of the vehicle.
Engelhard, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to select the bandwidth utilization further in response to at least one of:
a bandwidth utilization provided in the vehicle policy data value;
a bandwidth utilization responsive to a priority of the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data;
a bandwidth utilization responsive to an availability description for transmitting resources for the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data; or
an operating condition of the vehicle ("the expected transmission bandwidth could additionally be determined as a function of the expected load. When the at the mobile terminal is, for example, a component of a vehicle and when traffic congestion is reported along the route, it can be assumed that many drivers standing in traffic will make a call with their mobile phones to notify of people waiting. This typically results in an increased utilization of the wireless interfaces, which may be taken into account when controlling the data transmission by the mobile terminal" (para 0017)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mayer with the teachings of Engelhard in order to increase utilization of the wireless interfaces; see Engelhard at least at [0017].
Claims 5, 7-9, 12-16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0130916 (hereinafter, "Mayer”; previously of record), in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0171793 (hereinafter, "Kim"; previously of record), in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0254543 (hereinafter, "Engelhard"; newly of record) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0166054 (hereinafter, "Grant”; previously of record).
Regarding claim 5, Mayer discloses and the combination of Kim and Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 4. However, Mayer does not explicitly teach wherein the priority relates to a requesting entity.
Grant, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the priority relates to a requesting entity (“ the data congestion control system 400 can be operable to monitor the resource consumption such as memory and/or CPU of devices 410, 412, 414, 415, 420, and/or 430, to monitor the data priority of the data types being transferred to respective devices 415, 420, and/or 430, and/or to monitor the operating bounds of devices 410, 412, 414, 415, 420, and/or 430, such as the minimum and/or maximum data rate at which these devices can receive and/or transmit data. The data congestion control system can be further operable to calculate a negotiation score of the devices 410, 412, 414, 415, and/or 430” (para 0020)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mayer with the teachings of Grant in order to calculate a negotiation score of the devices; see Grant at least at [0022].
Regarding claim 7, Mayer discloses the apparatus of claim 4. However, Mayer does not explicitly teach wherein the priority relates to at least one of:
a data type; an associated flow; an associated application; an associated vehicle function; a requesting end point; a providing end point; a providing entity; processing of collected data; or storage of collected data.
Grant, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the priority relates to at least one of:
a data type; an associated flow; an associated application; an associated vehicle function; a requesting end point; a providing end point; a providing entity; processing of collected data; or storage of collected data (“a score and/or ranking of the types of data and/or respective sensor devices” (para 0022)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mayer with the teachings of Grant in order to score and/or rank types of data; see Grant at least at [0022].
Regarding claim 8, Mayer discloses and the combination of Kim and Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Mayer does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to selectively transmit the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data based at least in part on an amount of the collected vehicle data.
Grant, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to selectively transmit the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data based at least in part on an amount of the collected vehicle data (“only transmit its collected data when the collected data compares favorably to a threshold” (para 0020) and “the control device 415 may not know the boundary transmission rates of the devices from which data is received” (para 0028)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mayer with the teachings of Grant in order to generate control data for transmission; see Grant at least at [0017].
Regarding claim 9, Mayer discloses and the combination of Kim and Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 8. However, Mayer does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to selectively transmit the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data in response to when the amount of the collected vehicle data exceeds a threshold.
Grant, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to selectively transmit the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data in response to when the amount of the collected vehicle data exceeds a threshold (“The data congestion control system 400 is operable to detect potentially overloaded devices that are receiving data from other devices in the system, and is further operable to initiate a negotiation process reducing the data transmission from some or all of the corresponding devices in the system over time” (para 0020) and “the congestion threshold is based on a maximum transmission rate corresponding to transmission of the aggregated sensor data to the gateway device” (para 0046)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mayer with the teachings of Grant in order to detect potentially overloaded devices; see Grant at least at [0020].
Regarding claim 12, Mayer discloses and the combination of Kim and Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Mayer does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to selectively transmit the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data by selecting a transmission interval in response to a data type of the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data.
Grant, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to selectively transmit the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data by selecting a transmission interval in response to a data type of the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data (“monitor the data priority of the data types being transferred to respective devices 415, 420, and/or 430, and/or to monitor the operating bounds of devices 410, 412, 414, 415, 420, and/or 430, such as the minimum and/or maximum data rate at which these devices can receive and/or transmit data” (para 0020) and “determine to reduce the data rate of the different data types by different amounts, for example, where some data types are transmitted at the same or increased rate and/or where other data types are not transmitted at all” (para 0030)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mayer with the teachings of Grant in order to optimize resource use; see Grant at least at [0066].
Regarding claim 13, Mayer discloses and the combination of Kim and Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Mayer does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to selectively transmit the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data in response to a vehicle operational impact of transmission operations.Grant, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to selectively transmit the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data in response to a vehicle operational impact of transmission operations (“This can include a data transmission reduction at the lowest hierarchical levels, where the transmission rate of at least one sensor devices is reduced. Alternatively or in addition, this can include a data transmission reduction at higher levels, where the transmission rate of at least one control device 415 and/or gateway device 430 is reduced. The negotiation process can be performed such that quality of service metrics of each device are honored while enabling each device to operate within its normal operating boundaries” (para 0020)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mayer with the teachings of Grant in order to enable each device to operate within its normal operating boundaries; see Grant at least at [0020].
Regarding claim 14, Mayer discloses and the combination of Kim and Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Mayer does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to selectively transmit the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data in response to a power utilization impact of transmission operations.
Grant, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to selectively transmit the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data in response to a power utilization impact of transmission operations (“ instructing a sensor device to hold off in transmitting its data and not transmit continuously can save battery power while ensuring that data is transmitted when necessary” (para 0033)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mayer with the teachings of Grant in order to save battery power while ensuring that data is transmitted when necessary; see Grant at least at [0033].
Regarding claim 15, Mayer discloses and the combination of Kim and Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Mayer does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to selectively transmit the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data in response to a data transmission capacity value.
Grant, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to selectively transmit the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data in response to a data transmission capacity value (“A control device 415 can determine to begin the congestion negotiation process in response to determining that memory capacity compares unfavorably to a threshold and/or that the incoming transmission rate compares unfavorably to a maximum reception rate threshold” (para 0023)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mayer with the teachings of Grant in order to enable each device to operate within its normal operating boundaries; see Grant at least at [0020].
Regarding claim 16, Mayer discloses and the combination of Kim and Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 15. Additionally, Mayer discloses wherein the data transmission capacity value comprises at least one data transmission capacity value selected from the values consisting of:
a data transmission capacity associated with an access point name; a data transmission capacity associated with an application of the vehicle related to the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data; or a data transmission capacity associated with a vehicle function related to the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data ; a data transmission capacity associated with a time interval (“the RDU central processor 24 is configured transmit one or more predetermined status messages or vehicle data to the backend or server side of the system at predetermined intervals, with each message containing selected vehicle data or status items.” (para 0082) and “GPS data may be down sampled and recorded at periodic intervals of e.g., 500 ms, 1 s, 2 s, 4 s, etc., depending on the desired size of the recorded data log” (para 0190));
a data transmission capacity associated with an entity related to the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data (“the RDS server 30 sends partial status information messages M2 received at a slow data rate T2 from all currently active or online vehicles to the user devices 40 authorized to receive information on the respective vehicles (S-95)” (para 0136));
a data transmission capacity associated with a flow related to the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data (“both selected and non-selected vehicles 3, 2 may transmit the same messages at different rates or different messages at the same rates.” (para 0084)).
Regarding claim 22, Mayer discloses and the combination of Kim and Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Mayer does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to adjust the selectively transmitting the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data in response to a quality of service parameter for transmitting operations.
Grant, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to adjust the selectively transmitting the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data in response to a quality of service parameter for transmitting operations (“The negotiation process can be performed such that quality of service metrics of each device are honored while enabling each device to operate at within its normal operating boundaries” (para 0020)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mayer with the teachings of Grant in order to honor the quality of service metrics of each device; see Grant at least at [0020].
Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0130916 (hereinafter, "Mayer”; previously of record), in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0171793 (hereinafter, "Kim"; previously of record), in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0254543 (hereinafter, "Engelhard"; newly of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0261020 (hereinafter, "Petousis”; previously of record).
Regarding claim 17, Mayer discloses and the combination of Kim and Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Mayer does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to selectively transmit the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data in response to a currently available transmission type.
Petousis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to selectively transmit the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data in response to a currently available transmission type (“ allocates (e.g., distributes, transfers, optimally forwards) the messages (e.g., vehicle sensor data) to each available communication channel (e.g., based on an optimization analysis)” (para 0045) and “ determining available (or anticipated available) network quality, and determining available transformation module and/or transmission module capacity based on the determined network quality.” (para 0052)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mayer with the teachings of Petousis in order to have preferential real-time transmission, precluding low-value data from consuming limited communication resources; see Petousis at least at [0016].
Regarding claim 18, Mayer discloses and the combination of Kim and Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Mayer does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to selectively transmit the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data by selecting a data transmission chunk size for the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data.
Petousis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to selectively transmit the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data by selecting a data transmission chunk size for the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data (“the transmission channels are determined according to the size of the vehicle sensor data (e.g., data of large size is designated for high bandwidth channels” (para 0057) and “The data is allocated to the appropriate channel according to size (e.g., large blocks of data are transmitted via the high bandwidth channel) and transmitted” (para 0070)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mayer with the teachings of Petousis in order to have preferential real-time transmission, precluding low-value data from consuming limited communication resources; see Petousis at least at [0016].
Regarding claim 19, Mayer discloses and the combination of Kim and Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 18. However, Mayer does not explicitly teach wherein the data transmission chunk size comprises at least one of an individual message size or a single transmission flow size.
Petousis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the data transmission chunk size comprises at least one of an individual message size or a single transmission flow size (“The message header can include the message importance (e.g., determined by prioritizing the vehicle sensor data, below), the message size (e.g., actual or estimated, post-compression, compressibility, etc” (para 0040)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mayer with the teachings of Petousis in order to have preferential real-time transmission, precluding low-value data from consuming limited communication resources; see Petousis at least at [0016].
Regarding claim 20, Mayer discloses and the combination of Kim and Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 18. However, Mayer does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to select the data transmission chunk size in response to at least one of:
a data transmission chunk size provided in the vehicle policy data value;
a data transmission chunk size responsive to a priority of the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data;
a data transmission chunk size responsive to an availability description for transmitting resources for the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data;
a data transmission chunk size responsive to a historical transmission availability for the vehicle; or
an operating condition of the vehicle.
Petousis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to select the data transmission chunk size in response to at least one of:
a data transmission chunk size provided in the vehicle policy data value;
a data transmission chunk size responsive to a priority of the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data (“ Prioritizing the vehicle sensor data can be based on characteristics of the vehicle sensor data itself (e.g., block size, packet content, compressibility, type, etc.), a prioritization request (e.g., a remote query specifies a type of data or combination of data)”) (para 0028);
a data transmission chunk size responsive to a historical transmission availability for the vehicle; or
an operating condition of the vehicle (“determining a first threshold data size for a first available channel based on available bandwidth” (para 0064)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mayer with the teachings of Petousis in order to have preferential real-time transmission, precluding low-value data from consuming limited communication resources; see Petousis at least at [0016].
Regarding claim 21, Mayer discloses and the combination of Kim and Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Mayer does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to adjust the selectively transmitting the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data in response to a success parameter for transmitting operations.
Petousis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the vehicle data transmission circuit is further structured to adjust the selectively transmitting the at least a portion of the collected vehicle data in response to a success parameter for transmitting operations (“Transmitting message data can optionally include waiting for confirmation of successful transmission” (para 0064)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mayer with the teachings of Petousis in order to confirm successful transmission; see Petousis at least at [0064].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ALHARBI whose telephone number is (313)446-6621. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00AM – 7:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/ADAM M ALHARBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights