Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR §1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR §1.17(e), was filed on January 30, 2026 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in 37 CFR §1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action dated October 31, 2025 has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR §1.114 and the submission filed on January 30, 2026 has been entered. Claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 are newly cancelled by the applicant. Claims 1, 2, 5-14, and 17-20 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
3. 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.
4. Claims 5 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation, “The vehicle on-board computer of claim 4…” However, claim 4 was cancelled by the applicant in the RCE filed on January 30, 2026. Therefore, it is unclear which claim the applicant intends for claim 5 to depend from. For the purpose of examination, claim 5 has been interpreted as if it depends from claim 1. Appropriate correction or clarification of this claim is required. No new matter may be added.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321€ or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07€ and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
6. Claims 1, 5-9, 11, 13, and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11615478 in view of Fields (U.S. Patent No. 10493994). A mapping between the limitations of these claims is provided below.
Instant Application
Issued Patent
Claim 1
A vehicle on-board computer comprising: a communication interface;
one or more processors;
a heads-up display; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the vehicle on-board computer to:
receive an indication of a positive ignition event from a vehicle associated with the vehicle on-board computer;
collect telematics data from a telematics system activated, responsive to the positive ignition event, the telematics data associated with operation of the vehicle during a window of time;
receive a user-initiated touch input at the heads-up display to cause a vehicle operation for the vehicle which generates operation data corresponding to the user-initiated vehicle operation;
analyze the telematics data and the operation data to identify one or more parameters associated with safe driving behavior;
present, at the heads-up display, an indication that one or more parameters meet a safe driving threshold;
receive a user interaction with a sharing prompt indicating an agreement to share the telematics data with a third party.
Claim 5
The vehicle on-board computer of claim 4, wherein the memory storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the vehicle on-board computer to present a prompt to view driving data related to the telematics data.
Claim 6
The vehicle on-board computer of claim 1, wherein the operation data corresponds to an operation of internal vehicle systems or components.
Claim 7
The vehicle on-board computer of claim 6, wherein the internal vehicle systems or components includes at least one of a sound system, a dashboard display, an output speaker, an interior lighting system, a climate control system, an ignition system, or a door locking system.
Claim 8
The vehicle on-board computer of claim 1, wherein the memory storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the vehicle on-board computer to receive, at the heads-up display, one or more user inputs to operate one or more external vehicle systems or components.
Claim 9
The vehicle on-board computer of claim 8, wherein the one or more external vehicle systems or components include windshield wipers or an exterior lighting system.
Claim 11
The vehicle on-board computer of claim 10, wherein the memory storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the vehicle on-board computer to receive a selection to share telematics.
Claim 13
A vehicle on-board computer comprising: a communication interface;
one or more processors;
a display screen; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the vehicle on-board computer to:
receive an indication of a positive ignition event from a vehicle associated with the vehicle on-board computer;
collect telematics data from a telematics system activated, responsive to the positive ignition event, the telematics data associated with operation of the vehicle during a window of time;
receive a user-initiated touch input at the display screen to cause a vehicle operation for the vehicle which generates operation data corresponding to the user-initiated vehicle operation;
analyze the telematics data and the operation data to identify one or more parameters associated with safe driving behavior;
present, at the display screen, an indication that the one or more parameters meet a safe driving threshold;
present, at the display screen, a prompt for a user to opt in or opt out of a safe driving program which includes a collection of telematics data; and
receive a user confirmation to opt in the safe driving program.
Claim 17
A method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors of a vehicle on-board computer, an indication of a positive ignition event from a vehicle associated with the vehicle on-board computer;
collecting, by the one or more processors of the vehicle on-board computer, telematics data from a telematics system activated, responsive to the positive ignition event, the telematics data associated with operation of the vehicle during a window of time;
receiving, at a display screen of the vehicle on-board computer, a user-initiated touch input to cause a vehicle operation for the vehicle which generates operation data;
analyzing the telematics data and the operation data to identify one or more parameters associated with safe driving behavior;
presenting, at the display screen, an indication that one or more parameters meet a safe driving threshold; and
receiving a user interaction with a sharing prompt indicating an agreement to share the telematics data with a third party.
Claim 18
The method of claim 17, further comprising: presenting, at the display screen, a prompt requesting confirmation to share telematics data with a third party; and receiving, at the display screen, a user interaction with the prompt indicating the confirmation to share the telematics data with the third party.
Claim 19
The method of claim 17, further comprising: present, at the display screen, a prompt to view driving data related to the telematics data.
Claim 20
The method of claim 17, further comprising: receiving, at the display screen, one or more user inputs to operate one or more external vehicle systems or components.
(claim 1) An apparatus comprising: a telematics system configured to collect telematics data associated with operation of a vehicle; a communication interface;
(claim 1) one or more processors; and
(claim 1) a display of the apparatus;
(claim 1) memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
(claim 1) receive an indication of a positive ignition event from a vehicle control computer associated with the vehicle;
(claim 1) activate, responsive to the positive ignition event, the telematics system to collect telematics data associated with operation of the vehicle during a window of time
Examiner’s Note: The issued patent does not explicitly state that that a touch input is received to cause a vehicle operation and the generation of operation data. However, Fields does teach this limitation (See Fields, at least Col. 19, Line 50 – Col. 20, Line 35: The system may also generate driver response data comprising a change in the behavior of vehicle operations that is initiated by the driver [i.e., operation data] during the period of time. The driver response data may be generated based on detecting a change in behavior of the driver [i.e., receiving input from the driver to turn on exterior lighting]. The on-board computer may comprise a user-input device, such as a keyboard [i.e., a touch-based input mechanism] for receiving instructions or information from the vehicle operator [See Col. 14, Lines 10-20]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the issued patent and Fields in order to provide systems and methods for determining or rating driver performance based on the context in which the driver is operating a vehicle and the driver's responses to changes in the context (Fields: Col. 1, Lines 33-41).
Examiner’s Note: The issued patent does not explicitly state that telematics data and operation data are analyzed to identify one or more parameters associated with safe driving behavior. However Fields does teach this limitation (See at least Col. 19, Line 50 – Col. 20, Line 35: The first set of time-series data [i.e., the telematics data] may be analyzed in combination with the change in the behavior of vehicle operations [i.e., the operation data] to determine the driver response data. In this sense, the contextual data associated with the driver response data, such as the driver’s time-to-respond [i.e., one or more parameters associated with safe driving behavior] is generated base on a combined analysis of the first set of time-series data and the change in the behavior of vehicle operations initiated by the driver). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the issued patent and Fields in order to provide systems and methods for determining or rating driver performance based on the context in which the driver is operating a vehicle and the driver's responses to changes in the context (Fields: Col. 1, Lines 33-41).
(claim 1) display, on a display of the apparatus, a sharing prompt indicating that the one or more parameters meet the safe driving threshold;
(claim 1) receive a user interaction with the sharing prompt, the user interaction indicating a confirmation to share the telematics data with a third-party.
Examiner’s Note: The issued patent does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 5. However, Fields does teach these limitations (See Fields, Col. 22, Lines 11-26: The on-board computer may present an indication of the driver's performance to the driver via an alert, warning, or notification). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the issued patent and Fields in order to provide systems and methods for determining or rating driver performance based on the context in which the driver is operating a vehicle and the driver's responses to changes in the context (Fields: Col. 1, Lines 33-41).
Examiner’s Note: The issued patent does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 6. However, Fields does teach these limitations (See Fields, Col. 20, Lines 13-35: Generating the driver response data may include identifying changes in the behavior of vehicle operation that are initiated by the driver, such as turning down the radio [i.e., operation of internal vehicle systems or components]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the issued patent and Fields in order to provide systems and methods for determining or rating driver performance based on the context in which the driver is operating a vehicle and the driver's responses to changes in the context (Fields: Col. 1, Lines 33-41).
Examiner’s Note: The issued patent does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 7. However, Fields does teach these limitations (See Fields, Col. 20, Lines 13-35: Generating the driver response data may include identifying changes in the behavior of vehicle operation that are initiated by the driver, such as turning down the radio [i.e., operation of a sound system]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the issued patent and Fields in order to provide systems and methods for determining or rating driver performance based on the context in which the driver is operating a vehicle and the driver's responses to changes in the context (Fields: Col. 1, Lines 33-41).
Examiner’s Note: The issued patent does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 8. However, Fields does teach these limitations (See Fields, Col. 20, Lines 13-35: Generating the driver response data may include identifying changes in the behavior of vehicle operation that are initiated by the driver, such as turning on exterior lighting [i.e., operation of external vehicle systems or components]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the issued patent and Fields in order to provide systems and methods for determining or rating driver performance based on the context in which the driver is operating a vehicle and the driver's responses to changes in the context (Fields: Col. 1, Lines 33-41).
Examiner’s Note: The issued patent does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 9. However, Fields does teach these limitations (See Fields, Col. 20, Lines 13-35: Generating the driver response data may include identifying changes in the behavior of vehicle operation that are initiated by the driver, such as turning on exterior lighting). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the issued patent and Fields in order to provide systems and methods for determining or rating driver performance based on the context in which the driver is operating a vehicle and the driver's responses to changes in the context (Fields: Col. 1, Lines 33-41).
Examiner’s Note: The issued patent does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 11. However, Fields does teach these limitations (See Fields, Col. 23, Lines 18-33: The driver may opt-in to a rewards, loyalty, discount, or other program. For example, the driver may allow the remote computing system to collect sensor, telematics, vehicle, mobile device, driver performance, and other types of data. With customer permission or affirmative consent, the data collected may be analyzed to provide certain benefits to the driver. The on-board computer may comprise a display and user-input device for providing instructions or information from the vehicle operator, such as settings, selections, acknowledgements, etc. [See Col. 14, Lines 10-20]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the issued patent and Fields in order to provide systems and methods for determining or rating driver performance based on the context in which the driver is operating a vehicle and the driver's responses to changes in the context (Fields: Col. 1, Lines 33-41).
(claim 1) An apparatus comprising: a telematics system configured to collect telematics data associated with operation of a vehicle; a communication interface;
(claim 1) one or more processors; and
(claim 1) a display of the apparatus;
(claim 1) memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
(claim 1) receive an indication of a positive ignition event from a vehicle control computer associated with the vehicle;
(claim 1) activate, responsive to the positive ignition event, the telematics system to collect telematics data associated with operation of the vehicle during a window of time
Examiner’s Note: The issued patent does not explicitly state that that a touch input is received to cause a vehicle operation and the generation of operation data. However, Fields does teach this limitation (See Fields, at least Col. 19, Line 50 – Col. 20, Line 35: The system may also generate driver response data comprising a change in the behavior of vehicle operations that is initiated by the driver [i.e., operation data] during the period of time. The driver response data may be generated based on detecting a change in behavior of the driver [i.e., receiving input from the driver to turn on exterior lighting]. The on-board computer may comprise a user-input device, such as a keyboard [i.e., a touch-based input mechanism] for receiving instructions or information from the vehicle operator [See Col. 14, Lines 10-20]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the issued patent and Fields in order to provide systems and methods for determining or rating driver performance based on the context in which the driver is operating a vehicle and the driver's responses to changes in the context (Fields: Col. 1, Lines 33-41).
Examiner’s Note: The issued patent does not explicitly state that telematics data and operation data are analyzed to identify one or more parameters associated with safe driving behavior. However Fields does teach this limitation (See at least Col. 19, Line 50 – Col. 20, Line 35: The first set of time-series data [i.e., the telematics data] may be analyzed in combination with the change in the behavior of vehicle operations [i.e., the operation data] to determine the driver response data. In this sense, the contextual data associated with the driver response data, such as the driver’s time-to-respond [i.e., one or more parameters associated with safe driving behavior] is generated base on a combined analysis of the first set of time-series data and the change in the behavior of vehicle operations initiated by the driver). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the issued patent and Fields in order to provide systems and methods for determining or rating driver performance based on the context in which the driver is operating a vehicle and the driver's responses to changes in the context (Fields: Col. 1, Lines 33-41).
(claim 1) display, on a display of the apparatus, a sharing prompt indicating that the one or more parameters meet the safe driving threshold;
(claim 1) display, on a display of the apparatus, a sharing prompt indicating that the one or more parameters meet the safe driving threshold;
(claim 1) receive a user interaction with the sharing prompt, the user interaction indicating a confirmation to share the telematics data with a third-party
(claim 9) A method comprising:
(claim 9) receiving an indication of a positive ignition event from a vehicle control computer associated with a vehicle
(claim 9) activating a telematics system to collect telematics data associated with operation of the vehicle during a window of time responsive to receiving the indication of the positive ignition event
Examiner’s Note: The issued patent does not explicitly state that that a touch input is received to cause a vehicle operation and the generation of operation data. However, Fields does teach this limitation (See Fields, See at least Col. 19, Line 50 – Col. 20, Line 35: The system may also generate driver response data [i.e., operation data] during the period of time. The driver response data may be generated based on detecting a change in behavior of the driver [i.e., receiving input from the driver to turn on exterior lighting]. The on-board computer may comprise a user-input device, such as a keyboard [i.e., a touch-based input mechanism] for receiving instructions or information from the vehicle operator [See Col. 14, Lines 10-20]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the issued patent and Fields in order to provide systems and methods for determining or rating driver performance based on the context in which the driver is operating a vehicle and the driver's responses to changes in the context (Fields: Col. 1, Lines 33-41).
Examiner’s Note: The issued patent does not explicitly state that telematics data and operation data are analyzed to identify one or more parameters associated with safe driving behavior. However Fields does teach this limitation (See at least Col. 19, Line 50 – Col. 20, Line 35: The first set of time-series data [i.e., the telematics data] may be analyzed in combination with the change in the behavior of vehicle operations [i.e., the operation data] to determine the driver response data. In this sense, the contextual data associated with the driver response data, such as the driver’s time-to-respond [i.e., one or more parameters associated with safe driving behavior] is generated base on a combined analysis of the first set of time-series data and the change in the behavior of vehicle operations initiated by the driver). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the issued patent and Fields in order to provide systems and methods for determining or rating driver performance based on the context in which the driver is operating a vehicle and the driver's responses to changes in the context (Fields: Col. 1, Lines 33-41).
(claim 9) displaying, on a display of the computing device, a sharing prompt indicating that the one or more parameters meets the safe driving threshold;
(claim 9) receiving, at the computing device, a user interaction with the sharing prompt indicating a confirmation to share the telematics data with an insurance entity.
(claim 9) displaying, on a display of the computing device, a sharing prompt indicating that the one or more parameters meets the safe driving threshold; and receiving, at the computing device, a user interaction with the sharing prompt indicating a confirmation to share the telematics data with an insurance entity;
Examiner’s Note: The issued patent does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 19. However, Fields does teach these limitations (See Fields, Col. 22, Lines 11-26: The on-board computer may present an indication of the driver's performance to the driver via an alert, warning, or notification). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the issued patent and Fields in order to provide systems and methods for determining or rating driver performance based on the context in which the driver is operating a vehicle and the driver's responses to changes in the context (Fields: Col. 1, Lines 33-41).
Examiner’s Note: The issued patent does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 20. However, Fields does teach these limitations (See Fields, Col. 20, Lines 13-35: Generating the driver response data may include identifying changes in the behavior of vehicle operation that are initiated by the driver, such as turning on exterior lighting [i.e., operation of external vehicle systems or components]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the issued patent and Fields in order to provide systems and methods for determining or rating driver performance based on the context in which the driver is operating a vehicle and the driver's responses to changes in the context (Fields: Col. 1, Lines 33-41).
Therefore, because claim 1 and 9 the issued patent, in view of Fields, teach each limitation of claims 1, 5-9, 11, 13, and 17-20 of the instant application, claims 1, 5-9, 11, 13, and 17-20 of the instant application are obvious over claims 1 and 9 of the issued patent in view of Fields.
7. Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11615478 in view of Fields (U.S. Patent No. 10493994) and Chen (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20150170439). A mapping between the limitations of these claims is provided below.
Instant Application
Issued Patent
Claim 2
The vehicle on-board computer of claim 1, wherein: the memory storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the vehicle on-board computer to receive a user input to create an account associated with a user, and collecting the telematics data is at least partly in response to receiving the user input to create the account.
Examiner’s Note: The issued patent in view of Fields does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 2. However, Chen does teach these limitations (See at least Paragraph 42: Describes a system and method for automotive diagnostics. The system may require the user to register the tool [i.e., a tool for uploading vehicle operational data to a remote server; see Paragraph 35] with the diagnostic provider. The registration process may include creating an account with the diagnostic provider The registration process may require the end user to consent to the sharing of data and information with the selling retailer and the diagnostic provider, including the sharing of vehicle data [i.e., the vehicle data is shared in response to the account being created]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the issued patent, Fields, and Chen in order to create a relationship between a tool manufacturer and an after-market provider of repair parts and services to maximize their complimentary resources for creating a beneficial relationship between the companies and to provide an efficient customer experience for the end user (Chen: Paragraph 9).
Therefore, because claim 1 the issued patent, in view of Fields and Chen, teach each limitation of claim 2 of the instant application, claim 2 of the instant application is obvious over claim 1 of the issued patent in view of Fields and Chen.
8. Claims 10, 12, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11615478 in view of Fields (U.S. Patent No. 10493994) and Kwak (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20200219337). A mapping between the limitations of these claims is provided below.
Instant Application
Issued Patent
Claim 10
The vehicle on-board computer of claim 1, wherein the memory storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the vehicle on-board computer to present a user an option to be notified before telematics data is shared.
Claim 12
The vehicle on-board computer of claim 10, wherein the memory storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the vehicle on-board computer to present a first graphic indicating that telematics is being shared or present a second graphic indicating that telematics data is not being shared.
Claim 14
The vehicle on-board computer of claim 13, wherein the memory storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the vehicle on-board computer to present, at the display screen, a notification of telematics data sharing.
Examiner’s Note: The issued patent in view of Fields does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 10. However, Kwak does teach these limitations (See at least Paragraph 115: Describes a method for sharing trip data associated with a vehicle with a third-party. The method includes allowing the server to override consensual driver privacy settings to receive information from a privacy-adjustable dataset [e.g., speed and location data for the vehicle]. The user may be notified that the privacy settings have been overridden, and that data is being shared with the third-party. In other words, the user has the option to be notified before data is collected from the vehicle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the issued patent, Fields, and Kwak in order to provide a system that keeps an outside partner entity away from monitoring what can be considered private and sensitive information, such as vehicle speed, past and current vehicle locations categorized by time, and other privacy-sensitive information (Kwak: Paragraphs 5-8).
Examiner’s Note: The issued patent in view of Fields does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 12. However, Kwak does teach these limitations (See at least Paragraphs 89 and 90: Describes a system that allows a driver to revoke data sharing privileges between a vehicle and a third party. An interface may be displayed to the user identifying whether data sharing operation is permitted [See Figure 10] the display may comprise different icons identifying the status of the data sharing operation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the issued patent, Fields, and Kwak in order to provide a system that keeps an outside partner entity away from monitoring what can be considered private and sensitive information, such as vehicle speed, past and current vehicle locations categorized by time, and other privacy-sensitive information (Kwak: Paragraphs 5-8).
Examiner’s Note: The issued patent in view of Fields does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 14. However, Kwak does teach these limitations (See at least Paragraphs 89 and 90: Describes a system that allows a driver to revoke data sharing privileges between a vehicle and a third party. An interface may be displayed to the user identifying whether data sharing operation is permitted [See Figure 10] the display may comprise different icons [i.e., a notification] identifying the status of the data sharing operation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the issued patent, Fields, and Kwak in order to provide a system that keeps an outside partner entity away from monitoring what can be considered private and sensitive information, such as vehicle speed, past and current vehicle locations categorized by time, and other privacy-sensitive information (Kwak: Paragraphs 5-8).
Therefore, because claim 1 the issued patent, in view of Fields and Kwak, teach each limitation of claims 10, 12, and 14 of the instant application, claims 10, 12, and 14 of the instant application are obvious over claim 1 of the issued patent in view of Fields and Kwak.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields (U.S. Patent No. 10493994) in view of Watkins (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20050075892) and Kwak (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20200219337).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Fields teaches:
A vehicle on-board computer comprising: a communication interface; one or more processors; a heads-up display; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the vehicle on-board computer to (See at least Col. 11, Line 59 – Col. 12, Line 31: Describes an on-board computer for performing vehicle on-board functions and determining driver performance. The on-board computer comprises a display [i.e., a heads-up display], a communication unit, a processor, and a program memory):
collect telematics data from a telematics system activated, [[responsive to the positive ignition event]], the telematics data associated with operation of the vehicle during a window of time (See at least Col. 17, Line 66 – Col. 18, Line 36: The on-board computer may collect a first set of time-series data from sensors that are associated with a vehicle being operated by the driver. The time-series data may comprise various telematics data collected form one or more sensors associated with the vehicle [See Col. 6, Lines 14-63]. Examiner's Note: Fields does not explicitly teach that the telematics data is collected in response to a positive ignition event. However, this limitation is disclosed by Watkins as described below);
receive a user-initiated touch input at the heads-up display to cause a vehicle operation for the vehicle which generates operation data corresponding to the user-initiated vehicle operation (See at least Col. 19, Line 50 – Col. 20, Line 35: The system may also generate driver response data comprising a change in the behavior of vehicle operations that is initiated by the driver [i.e., operation data] during the period of time. The driver response data may be generated based on detecting a change in behavior of the driver [i.e., receiving input from the driver to turn on exterior lighting]. The on-board computer may comprise a user-input device, such as a keyboard [i.e., a touch-based input mechanism] for receiving instructions or information from the vehicle operator [See Col. 14, Lines 10-20]);
analyze the telematics data and the operation data to identify one or more parameters associated with safe driving behavior (See at least Col. 19, Line 50 – Col. 20, Line 35: The first set of time-series data [i.e., the telematics data] may be analyzed in combination with the change in the behavior of vehicle operations [i.e., the operation data] to determine the driver response data. In this sense, the contextual data associated with the driver response data, such as the driver’s time-to-respond [i.e., one or more parameters associated with safe driving behavior] is generated base on a combined analysis of the first set of time-series data and the change in the behavior of vehicle operations initiated by the driver);
present, at the heads-up display, an indication that the one or more parameters meet a safe driving threshold (See at least Col. 20, Line 66 – Col. 22, Line 26: The on-board computer may compare the driver response data to one or more thresholds in order to determine a level of the driver's performance. An indication of the driver's performance may be presented to the driver via an alert, warning, or notification); and
receive [[a user interaction with a sharing prompt]] indicating an agreement to share the telematics data with a third party (See at least Col. 23, Lines 18-33: The driver may opt-in to a rewards, loyalty, discount, or other program. For example, the driver may allow the remote computing system to collect sensor, telematics, vehicle, mobile device, driver performance, and other types of data. With customer permission or affirmative consent, the data collected may be analyzed to provide certain benefits to the driver. Examiner's Note: Fields does not explicitly state that the user interacts with a "sharing prompt." However, this limitation is disclosed by Kwak as described below).
Regarding Claim 1, Fields does not explicitly teach, but Watkins, however, does teach:
receive an indication of a positive ignition event from a vehicle associated with the vehicle on-board computer (See at least Paragraph 34: Describes a system for operating a telematics unit. The telematics unit may be activated via an event, such as ignition cycle); and
collect telematics data from a telematics system activated, responsive to the positive ignition event (See at least Paragraph 34: Any such event can be used to trigger a logistics report function in which the telematics unit contacts the service center and uploads data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of # and # in order to take advantage of an array of services offered by telematics service providers (Watkins: Paragraphs 2 and 3). Collecting telematics data upon detecting an ignition event ensures that the data is collected when sufficient power is provided to the vehicle modules (Watkins: Paragraph 32).
Regarding Claim 1, the combination of Fields and Watkins does not explicitly teach, but Kwak, however, does teach:
receive a user interaction with a sharing prompt indicating an agreement to share the telematics data with a third party. (See at least Paragraph 87: Describes a user interface for authorizing specific privacy-adjustable real-time commercial vehicle operating and/or asset tracking applications to share with an authorized third-party entity. The user may interact with the interface in order to select particular data that may be shared with the third-party entity [See Figure 7]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Fields, Watkins, and Kwak in order to provide a system that keeps an outside partner entity away from monitoring what can be considered private and sensitive information, such as vehicle speed, past and current vehicle locations categorized by time, and other privacy-sensitive information (Kwak: Paragraphs 5-8).
Claim 5
Regarding Claim 5, Fields teaches:
wherein the memory storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the vehicle on-board computer to present a prompt to view driving data related to the telematics data (See at least Col. 22, Lines 11-26: The on-board computer may present an indication of the driver's performance to the driver via an alert, warning, or notification).
Claim 6
Regarding Claim 6, Fields teaches:
wherein the operation data corresponds to an operation of internal vehicle systems or components (See at least Col. 20, Lines 13-35: Generating the driver response data may include identifying changes in the behavior of vehicle operation that are initiated by the driver, such as turning down the radio [i.e., operation of internal vehicle systems or components]).
Claim 7
Regarding Claim 7, Fields teaches:
wherein the internal vehicle systems or components includes at least one of a sound system, a dashboard display, an output speaker, an interior lighting system, a climate control system, an ignition system, or a door locking system (See at least Col. 20, Lines 13-35: Generating the driver response data may include identifying changes in the behavior of vehicle operation that are initiated by the driver, such as turning down the radio [i.e., operation of a sound system]).
Claim 8
Regarding Claim 8, Fields teaches:
wherein the memory storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the vehicle on-board computer to receive, at the heads-up display, one or more user inputs to operate one or more external vehicle systems or components (See at least Col. 20, Lines 13-35: Generating the driver response data may include identifying changes in the behavior of vehicle operation that are initiated by the driver, such as turning on exterior lighting [i.e., operation of external vehicle systems or components]).
Claim 9
Regarding Claim 9, Fields teaches:
wherein the one or more external vehicle systems or components include windshield wipers or an exterior lighting system (See at least Col. 20, Lines 13-35: Generating the driver response data may include identifying changes in the behavior of vehicle operation that are initiated by the driver, such as turning on exterior lighting).
Claim 10
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Fields and Watkins does not explicitly teach, but Kwak, however, does teach:
wherein the memory storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the vehicle on-board computer to present a user an option to be notified before telematics data is shared (See at least Paragraph 115: Describes a method for sharing trip data associated with a vehicle with a third-party. The method includes allowing the server to override consensual driver privacy settings to receive information from a privacy-adjustable dataset [e.g., speed and location data for the vehicle]. The user may be notified that the privacy settings have been overridden, and that data is being shared with the third-party. In other words, the user has the option to be notified before data is collected from the vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Fields, Watkins, and Kwak in order to provide a system that keeps an outside partner entity away from monitoring what can be considered private and sensitive information, such as vehicle speed, past and current vehicle locations categorized by time, and other privacy-sensitive information (Kwak: Paragraphs 5-8).
Claim 11
Regarding Claim 11, Fields teaches:
wherein the memory storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the vehicle on-board computer to receive a selection to share telematics (See at least Col. 23, Lines 18-33: The driver may opt-in to a rewards, loyalty, discount, or other program. For example, the driver may allow the remote computing system to collect sensor, telematics, vehicle, mobile device, driver performance, and other types of data. With customer permission or affirmative consent, the data collected may be analyzed to provide certain benefits to the driver. The on-board computer may comprise a display and user-input device for providing instructions or information from the vehicle operator, such as settings, selections, acknowledgements, etc. [See Col. 14, Lines 10-20]).
Claim 12
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Fields and Watkins does not explicitly teach, but Kwak, however, does teach:
wherein the memory storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the vehicle on-board computer to present a first graphic indicating that telematics is being shared or present a second graphic indicating that telematics data is not being shared (See at least Paragraphs 89 and 90: Describes a system that allows a driver to revoke data sharing privileges between a vehicle and a third party. An interface may be displayed to the user identifying whether data sharing operation is permitted [See Figure 10] the display may comprise different icons identifying the status of the data sharing operation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Fields, Watkins, and Kwak in order to provide a system that keeps an outside partner entity away from monitoring what can be considered private and sensitive information, such as vehicle speed, past and current vehicle locations categorized by time, and other privacy-sensitive information (Kwak: Paragraphs 5-8).
Claim 13
Regarding Claim 13, Fields teaches:
A vehicle on-board computer comprising: a communication interface; one or more processors; a display screen; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the vehicle on-board computer to (See at least Col. 11, Line 59 – Col. 12, Line 31: Describes an on-board computer for performing vehicle on-board functions and determining driver performance. The on-board computer comprises a display [i.e., a display screen], a communication unit, a processor, and a program memory):
collect telematics data from a telematics system activated, [[responsive to the positive ignition event]], the telematics data associated with operation of the vehicle during a window of time (See at least Col. 17, Line 66 – Col. 18, Line 36: The on-board computer may collect a first set of time-series data from sensors that are associated with a vehicle being operated by the driver. The time-series data may comprise various telematics data collected form one or more sensors associated with the vehicle [See Col. 6, Lines 14-63]. Examiner's Note: Fields does not explicitly teach that the telematics data is collected in response to a positive ignition event. However, this limitation is disclosed by Watkins as described below);
receive a user-initiated touch input at the heads-up display to cause a vehicle operation for the vehicle which generates operation data corresponding to the user-initiated vehicle operation (See at least Col. 19, Line 50 – Col. 20, Line 35: The system may also generate driver response data comprising a change in the behavior of vehicle operations that is initiated by the driver [i.e., operation data] during the period of time. The driver response data may be generated based on detecting a change in behavior of the driver [i.e., receiving input from the driver to turn on exterior lighting]. The on-board computer may comprise a user-input device, such as a keyboard [i.e., a touch-based input mechanism] for receiving instructions or information from the vehicle operator [See Col. 14, Lines 10-20]);
analyze the telematics data and the operation data to identify one or more parameters associated with safe driving behavior (See at least Col. 19, Line 50 – Col. 20, Line 35: The first set of time-series data [i.e., the telematics data] may be analyzed in combination with the change in the behavior of vehicle operations [i.e., the operation data] to determine the driver response data. In this sense, the contextual data associated with the driver response data, such as the driver’s time-to-respond [i.e., one or more parameters associated with safe driving behavior] is generated base on a combined analysis of the first set of time-series data and the change in the behavior of vehicle operations initiated by the driver);
present, at the heads-up display, an indication that the one or more parameters meet a safe driving threshold (See at least Col. 20, Line 66 – Col. 22, Line 26: The on-board computer may compare the driver response data to one or more thresholds in order to determine a level of the driver's performance. An indication of the driver's performance may be presented to the driver via an alert, warning, or notification);
[[present, at the display screen, a prompt]] for a user to opt in or opt out of a safe driving program which includes a collection of telematics data (See at least Col. 23, Lines 18-33: The driver may opt-in to a rewards, loyalty, discount, or other program [i.e., a safe-driving program]. For example, the driver may allow the remote computing system to collect sensor, telematics, vehicle, mobile device, driver performance, and other types of data. With customer permission or affirmative consent, the data collected may be analyzed to provide certain benefits to the driver [e.g., a safe driver program]. Examiner's Note: Fields does not explicitly state that the system displays a "prompt." However, this limitation is disclosed by Kwak as described below); and
receive a user confirmation to opt in the safe driving program (See at least Col. 23, Lines 18-33: With customer permission or affirmative consent, the data collected may be analyzed to provide certain benefits to the driver).
Regarding Claim 13, Fields does not explicitly teach, but Watkins, however, does teach:
receive an indication of a positive ignition event from a vehicle associated with the vehicle on-board computer (See at least Paragraph 34: Describes a system for operating a telematics unit. The telematics unit may be activated via an event, such as ignition cycle); and
collect telematics data from a telematics system activated, responsive to the positive ignition event (See at least Paragraph 34: Any such event can be used to trigger a logistics report function in which the telematics unit contacts the service center and uploads data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of # and # in order to take advantage of an array of services offered by telematics service providers (Watkins: Paragraphs 2 and 3). Collecting telematics data upon detecting an ignition event ensures that the data is collected when sufficient power is provided to the vehicle modules (Watkins: Paragraph 32).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Fields and Watkins does not explicitly teach, but Kwak, however, does teach:
present, at the display screen, a prompt for a user to opt in or opt out of a safe driving program which includes a collection of telematics data (See at least Paragraph 87: Describes a user interface for authorizing specific privacy-adjustable real-time commercial vehicle operating and/or asset tracking applications to share with an authorized third-party entity. The user may interact with the interface in order to select particular data that may be shared with the third-party entity [See Figure 7]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Fields, Watkins, and Kwak in order to provide a system that keeps an outside partner entity away from monitoring what can be considered private and sensitive information, such as vehicle speed, past and current vehicle locations categorized by time, and other privacy-sensitive information (Kwak: Paragraphs 5-8).
Claim 14
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Fields and Watkins does not explicitly teach, but Kwak, however, does teach:
wherein the memory storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the vehicle on-board computer to present, at the display screen, a notification of telematics data sharing (See at least Paragraphs 89 and 90: Describes a system that allows a driver to revoke data sharing privileges between a vehicle and a third party. An interface may be displayed to the user identifying whether data sharing operation is permitted [See Figure 10] the display may comprise different icons [i.e., a notification] identifying the status of the data sharing operation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Fields, Watkins, and Kwak in order to provide a system that keeps an outside partner entity away from monitoring what can be considered private and sensitive information, such as vehicle speed, past and current vehicle locations categorized by time, and other privacy-sensitive information (Kwak: Paragraphs 5-8).
Claim 17
Regarding Claim 17, Fields teaches:
A method comprising: collecting, by the one or more processors of the vehicle on-board computer, telematics data from a telematics system activated, [[responsive to the positive ignition event]], the telematics data associated with operation of the vehicle during a window of time (See at least Col. 17, Line 66 – Col. 18, Line 36: The on-board computer may collect a first set of time-series data from sensors that are associated with a vehicle being operated by the driver. The time-series data may comprise various telematics data collected form one or more sensors associated with the vehicle [See Col. 6, Lines 14-63]. Examiner's Note: Fields does not explicitly teach that the telematics data is collected in response to a positive ignition event. However, this limitation is disclosed by Watkins as described below);
receiving, at a display screen of the vehicle on-board computer, a user-initiated touch input to cause a vehicle operation for the vehicle which generates operation data (See at least Col. 19, Line 50 – Col. 20, Line 35: The system may also generate driver response data comprising a change in the behavior of vehicle operations that is initiated by the driver [i.e., operation data] during the period of time. The driver response data may be generated based on detecting a change in behavior of the driver [i.e., receiving input from the driver to turn on exterior lighting]. The on-board computer may comprise a user-input device, such as a keyboard [i.e., a touch-based input mechanism] for receiving instructions or information from the vehicle operator [See Col. 14, Lines 10-20]);
analyzing the telematics data and the operation data to identify one or more parameters associated with safe driving behavior (See at least Col. 19, Line 50 – Col. 20, Line 35: The first set of time-series data [i.e., the telematics data] may be analyzed in combination with the change in the behavior of vehicle operations [i.e., the operation data] to determine the driver response data. In this sense, the contextual data associated with the driver response data, such as the driver’s time-to-respond [i.e., one or more parameters associated with safe driving behavior] is generated base on a combined analysis of the first set of time-series data and the change in the behavior of vehicle operations initiated by the driver);
presenting, at the display screen, an indication that the one or more parameters meet a safe driving threshold (See at least Col. 20, Line 66 – Col. 22, Line 26: The on-board computer may compare the driver response data to one or more thresholds in order to determine a level of the driver's performance. An indication of the driver's performance may be presented to the driver via an alert, warning, or notification); and
receiving a user interaction with a sharing prompt indicating an agreement to share the telematics data with a third party (See at least Col. 23, Lines 18-33: The driver may opt-in to a rewards, loyalty, discount, or other program. For example, the driver may allow the remote computing system to collect sensor, telematics, vehicle, mobile device, driver performance, and other types of data. With customer permission or affirmative consent, the data collected may be analyzed to provide certain benefits to the driver. Examiner's Note: Fields does not explicitly state that the user interacts with a "sharing prompt." However, this limitation is disclosed by Kwak as described below).
Regarding Claim 17, Fields does not explicitly teach, but Watkins, however, does teach:
receiving, by one or more processors of a vehicle on-board computer, an indication of a positive ignition event from a vehicle associated with the vehicle on-board computer (See at least Paragraph 34: Describes a system for operating a telematics unit. The telematics unit may be activated via an event, such as ignition cycle); and
collecting, by the one or more processors of the vehicle on-board computer, telematics data from a telematics system activated, responsive to the positive ignition event (See at least Paragraph 34: Any such event can be used to trigger a logistics report function in which the telematics unit contacts the service center and uploads data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of # and # in order to take advantage of an array of services offered by telematics service providers (Watkins: Paragraphs 2 and 3). Collecting telematics data upon detecting an ignition event ensures that the data is collected when sufficient power is provided to the vehicle modules (Watkins: Paragraph 32).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Fields and Watkins does not explicitly teach, but Kwak, however, does teach:
receiving a user interaction with a sharing prompt indicating an agreement to share the telematics data with a third party (See at least Paragraph 87: Describes a user interface for authorizing specific privacy-adjustable real-time commercial vehicle operating and/or asset tracking applications to share with an authorized third-party entity. The user may interact with the interface in order to select particular data that may be shared with the third-party entity [See Figure 7]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Fields, Watkins, and Kwak in order to provide a system that keeps an outside partner entity away from monitoring what can be considered private and sensitive information, such as vehicle speed, past and current vehicle locations categorized by time, and other privacy-sensitive information (Kwak: Paragraphs 5-8).
Claim 18
Regarding Claim 18, Fields teaches:
presenting, at the display screen, a prompt requesting confirmation to share telematics data with a third party; and receiving, at the display screen, a user interaction with the prompt indicating the confirmation to share the telematics data with the third party (See at least Col. 23, Lines 18-33: The driver may opt-in to a rewards, loyalty, discount, or other program. For example, the driver may allow the remote computing system to collect sensor, telematics, vehicle, mobile device, driver performance, and other types of data. With customer permission or affirmative consent, the data collected may be analyzed to provide certain benefits to the driver. The on-board computer may comprise a display and user-input device for providing instructions or information from the vehicle operator, such as settings, selections, acknowledgements, etc. [See Col. 14, Lines 10-20]).
Claim 19
Regarding Claim 19, Fields teaches:
present, at the display screen, a prompt to view driving data related to the telematics data (See at least Col. 22, Lines 11-26: The on-board computer may present an indication of the driver's performance to the driver via an alert, warning, or notification).
Claim 20
Regarding Claim 20, Fields teaches:
receiving, at the display screen, one or more user inputs to operate one or more external vehicle systems or components (See at least Col. 20, Lines 13-35: Generating the driver response data may include identifying changes in the behavior of vehicle operation that are initiated by the driver, such as turning on exterior lighting [i.e., operation of external vehicle systems or components]).
11. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields (U.S. Patent No. 10493994) in view of Watkins (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20050075892) and Kwak (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20200219337), and in further view of Chen (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20150170439).
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Fields, Watkins, and Kwak does not explicitly teach, but Chen, however, does teach:
the memory storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the vehicle on-board computer to receive a user input to create an account associated with a user (See at least Paragraph 42: Describes a system and method for automotive diagnostics. The system may require the user to register the tool [i.e., a tool for uploading vehicle operational data to a remote server; see Paragraph 35] with the diagnostic provider. The registration process may include creating an account with the diagnostic provider), and
collecting the telematics data is at least partly in response to receiving the user input to create the account (See at least Paragraph 42: The registration process may require the end user to consent to the sharing of data and information with the selling retailer and the diagnostic provider, including the sharing of vehicle data [i.e., the vehicle data is shared in response to the account being created]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Fields, Watkins, Kwak, and Chen in order to create a relationship between a tool manufacturer and an after-market provider of repair parts and services to maximize their complimentary resources for creating a beneficial relationship between the companies and to provide an efficient customer experience for the end user (Chen: Paragraph 9).
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments filed January 30, 2026 have been fully considered.
Arguments Regarding Double Patenting
13. On page 7 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “The present patent application is pending, and as such the claims may be amended in future responses. Applicant respectfully request that the instant nonstatutory double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until the claimed invention is deemed allowable and the claims are no longer subject to amendment.” The examiner acknowledges the applicant’s request. However, the rejection has been maintained and updated to address the applicant’s claim amendments.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 102/103
14. Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s claim amendments.
Additionally, on page 8 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “Fields does not teach or suggest a user interface element that requests user consent for data sharing, e.g., the sharing prompt. Field merely mentions that a driver "may allow" data collection or provide "permission or affirmative consent," but provides no disclosure of a prompt being presented to the user. Fields' generic reference to "permission" or "consent" does not constitute a teaching of a "sharing prompt." Additionally, Fields does not teach "receiving a user interaction with the sharing prompt indicating an agreement to share the telematics data". Fields merely discloses that the on-board computer "may comprise a display and user-input device...for receiving instructions or information from the vehicle operator, such as settings, selections, acknowledgements, etc." see Fields col. 14 lines 10-13. While user acknowledgements are mentioned here, specific user consent for sharing telematics data is not.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the examiner recognizes that Fields does not explicitly state that the user interacts with a “sharing prompt” to provide consent to share the telematics data, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the are that the user would interact with some form of prompt to provide such consent. As noted by the applicant, Fields does disclose the use of a display and user-input for receiving various selections and acknowledgements from the user (See Fields Col. 14, Lines 10-20). Therefore, considering the breadth of this limitation regarding the sharing prompt itself, the applicant believes that Fields reasonably teaches this limitation. However, for the sake of compact prosecution, Kwak (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20200219337) has been referenced to more explicitly teach a user interface element which the user interacts with to provide consent for sharing telematics data. The applicant is directed to the updated 103 rejection above.
Additionally, on pages 8 and 9 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “Furthermore, Fields does not teach sharing data with a 'third party'. Fields' disclosure (cited portion repeated above) describes data collection by a remote computing system and that the driver may allow the remote computing system to collect sensor, telematics, vehicle, mobile device, driver performance, and other types of data. However, Fields' remote computing system is the component that actually does the analyzing.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner notes that the telematics data is collected and analyzed by the vehicle on-board computer, and the user provides consent to transmit the telematics data to the remote computing system. While the remote computing system may also analyze the telematics data (e.g., for a rewards or discount program), this does not prevent the remote computing system from qualifying as a “third-party” as described in the claims. The claims do not provide any detail regarding the third-party and what type of entity the third-party refers to.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ji (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20100075608): Describes a system and method for facilitating communications between a vehicle and an access point which collects vehicle information. The wireless communications controller may output a message which asks the driver for approval communications approval for sending the vehicle information from the driver of a vehicle.
Goluguri (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20200312047): Describes a system that generally relates to vehicle data sharing, and more particularly, to vehicle data sharing with interested parties. The vehicle sensor data may be based on vehicle data sharing agreements to include permissions granted to share vehicle sensor data, registered parties to receive the data, and types of sensor data to share.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D NEWLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at (571) 272-3955. 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.
/WILLIAM D NEWLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights