DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 04/14/2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been fully considered and is unpersuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1, The limitations of claim 1 do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant claim 1 recites “…determine based on the current location of the vehicle as determined by the GPS unit and the geographical indications stored in the memory whether the vehicle is approaching a designated geographic area; and in response to determining that the vehicle is approaching the designated geographic area, perform at least one of the following: suppress an alarm generated by the vehicle alarm system that would otherwise be activated when the vehicle is in the designated geographic area; or indicate via a user interface that a vehicle alarm, if activated when the vehicle is in the designated geographic area, is a false alarm…” Although claim 1 has been amended to recite a vehicle alarm override system including a vehicle alarm system, vehicle-mounted sensors, a GPS unit, a memory, an alarm override unit, and a processor executing computer-readable instructions, these recited components constitute additional elements that perform their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of receiving, storing, determining, and communicating information. The amendments do not change the focus of the claim, which remains directed to determining, based on location information and stored geographical information, whether a vehicle is approaching a designated geographic area and, based on that determination, deciding whether an alarm should be suppressed or whether a user should be informed that the alarm is a false alarm.
Applicant contends that the recited structure cannot be performed simply as a mental process. However, the recited GPS unit, memory, processor, alarm override unit, and user interface merely provide a technological environment in which the judicial exception is implemented. The claimed determination is based on evaluating information, namely a current vehicle location and stored geographical indications, and applying a rule to reach a result. The subsequent actions of suppressing an alarm or indicating via a user interface that the alarm is a false alarm merely apply or communicate the result of that determination. These limitations do not recite any specific technological improvement to the operation of the vehicle alarm system, the GPS unit, or any other computer technology.
In particular, the limitation of suppressing an alarm merely reflects the application of the determination that the vehicle is approaching a designated geographic area, while the alternative limitation of indicating via a user interface that the alarm is a false alarm merely presents the result of that determination to a user. Neither limitation recites a specific technological mechanism or improvement in how the vehicle alarm system operates; instead, they merely implement or communicate the outcome of the abstract determination using generic computer components. Accordingly, the recited GPS unit, memory, processor, alarm override unit, and user interface amount to no more than additional elements used as tools to implement the judicial exception. When considered as a whole, claim 1 remains directed to an abstract idea and, therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Upon further consideration of the prior art of record, including Song, Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 04/14/2026 with respect to previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claim 1 Applicant argue the cited art of record, Makoto et al (JP 2002/092794 A1), fails to explicitly disclose all of the recited features of the amended claim 1 (see response pages 8-11), specifically “determine based on the current location of the vehicle as determined by the GPS unit and the geographical indications stored in the memory whether the vehicle is approaching a designated geographic area; and in response to determining that the vehicle is approaching the designated geographic area, perform at least one of the following: suppress an alarm generated by the vehicle alarm system that would otherwise be activated when the vehicle is in the designated geographic area; or indicate via a user interface that a vehicle alarm, if activated when the vehicle is in the designated geographic area, is a false alarm".
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Makoto teaches “determine based on the current location of the vehicle as determined by the GPS unit and the geographical indications stored in the memory whether the vehicle is approaching a designated geographic area; and in response to determining that the vehicle is approaching the designated geographic area, perform at least one of the following: suppress an alarm generated by the vehicle alarm system that would otherwise be activated when the vehicle is in the designated geographic area; or indicate via a user interface that a vehicle alarm, if activated when the vehicle is in the designated geographic area, is a false alarm”, as understood in at least (see Makoto pages 2-4) Makoto teaches determining whether the vehicle is traveling in a predetermined road section in which false alarms are likely to occur based on stored road section information and navigation information. As disclosed, "if it corresponds to this predetermined section, an erroneous alarm is expected to occur, so the alarm process is not performed and the process is terminated." The predetermined road section of Makoto corresponds to the claimed designated geographic area because it is a stored geographic location in which false alarms are expected to occur. Thus, when the vehicle is determined to correspond to that predetermined road section, Makoto suppresses the alarm that would otherwise have been generated by terminating the alarm process before the alarm is issued. Accordingly, Makoto teaches suppressing an alarm generated by the vehicle alarm system that would otherwise be activated when the vehicle is in the designated geographic area.
Further, Makoto explains that "if the frequency of occurrence of the alarm is high, it is determined that the alarm is a false alarm," and that "the subsequent false alarm can be suppressed." Makoto additionally states that "by storing the set road section in which the alarm is hard to be generated, it is possible to suppress the occurrence of a false alarm in advance when traveling in the same place thereafter." These disclosures further demonstrate that alarms that would otherwise be generated while the vehicle is traveling within the stored predetermined road section are intentionally suppressed because that road section has been identified as one in which false alarms are expected to occur.
Applicant also argues that the claimed user interface is not taught. However, the Specification broadly describes a user interface as an input/output interface for communicating information to a user. Makoto discloses a navigation ECU that acquires positional and road information and outputs the processed information to the display system (23). Makoto further explains that the output is sent to the display system and the alarm device, thereby communicating alarm-related information to the driver. Accordingly, the display system operated by the navigation ECU constitutes the claimed user interface.
Moreover, claim 1 recites the limitation in the alternative ("suppress an alarm ... or indicate via a user interface that the vehicle alarm is a false alarm"). Because Makoto expressly teaches suppressing an alarm that would otherwise be generated when the vehicle is within the predetermined road section corresponding to the claimed designated geographic area.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Re Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle alarm override system for use with a vehicle alarm system mounted in a vehicle, the vehicle alarm system including one or more vehicle mounted sensors for sensing vehicle conditions and a processor coupled to the one or more vehicle mounted sensors and that executes a computer program that generates one or more alarms based on the sensed vehicle conditions, the vehicle alarm override system comprising:
a global positioning system (GPS) unit mounted on the vehicle that determines a current location of the vehicle; a memory that stores one or more geographical indications of locations at which the vehicle alarm system is prone to generating a high rate of alarms based on the sensed vehicle condition;
an alarm override unit coupled to the vehicle alarm system to receive the one or more vehicle alarms from the vehicle alarm system, the alarm override unit coupled to the GPS unit and the memory and including a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors in a vehicle, cause the one or more processors to:
determine based on the current location of the vehicle as determined by the GPS unit and the geographical indications stored in the memory whether the vehicle is approaching a designated geographic area; and in response to determining that the vehicle is approaching the designated geographic area, perform at least one of the following: suppress an alarm generated by the vehicle alarm system that would otherwise be activated when the vehicle is in the designated geographic area; or indicate via a user interface that a vehicle alarm, if activated when the vehicle is in the designated geographic area, is a false alarm.
Under Step 1 Claim 1 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium same as claims 2-10.
Under Step 2A -Prong 1:
The identified claim limitations that recite an abstract idea fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in Section 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019. These fall under mental process.
Claim 1 recites “stored in the memory whether the vehicle is approaching a designated geographic area; and in response to determining that the vehicle is approaching the designated geographic area, perform at least one of the following: suppress an alarm generated by the vehicle alarm system that would otherwise be activated when the vehicle is in the designated geographic area; or indicate via a user interface that a vehicle alarm, if activated when the vehicle is in the designated geographic area, is a false alarm
Under Step 2A - Prong 2; the claims recite the additional element of “A A vehicle alarm override system for use with a vehicle alarm system mounted in a vehicle, the vehicle alarm system including one or more vehicle mounted sensors for sensing vehicle conditions and a processor coupled to the one or more vehicle mounted sensors and that executes a computer program that generates one or more alarms based on the sensed vehicle conditions, the vehicle alarm override system comprising: a global positioning system (GPS) unit mounted on the vehicle that determines a current location of the vehicle; a memory that stores one or more geographical indications of locations at which the vehicle alarm system is prone to generating a high rate of alarms based on the sensed vehicle condition; an alarm override unit coupled to the vehicle alarm system to receive the one or more vehicle alarms from the vehicle alarm system, the alarm override unit coupled to the GPS unit and the memory and including a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors in a vehicle, cause the one or more processors to:” steps is not more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1-10 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-10 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated in view of Makoto et al (JP 2002/092794 A1), (hereinafter Makoto).
Regarding claim 1, Makoto discloses A vehicle alarm override system for use with a vehicle alarm system mounted in a vehicle, the vehicle alarm system including one or more vehicle mounted sensors for sensing vehicle conditions and a processor coupled to the one or more vehicle mounted sensors and that executes a computer program that generates one or more alarms based on the sensed vehicle conditions, the vehicle alarm override system comprising: (see Makoto pages 1-2 “a vehicle alarm system according to the present invention alerts a driver when a predetermined condition is satisfied based on road information and vehicle behavior. In a vehicle alarm device having an alarm means for issuing a warning” and “The alarm control ECU 10 includes a storage device 11 for accumulating and storing predetermined section information”),
a global positioning system (GPS) unit mounted on the vehicle that determines a current location of the vehicle; a memory that stores one or more geographical indications of locations at which the vehicle alarm system is prone to generating a high rate of alarms based on the sensed vehicle condition (see Makoto pages 1-2 “On the other hand, the navigation system 3 has a navigation ECU (hereinafter referred to as "navi ECU") 30 for acquiring position information and road information of a road on which the vehicle is traveling. A CD-ROM device 31 for setting a CD-ROM in which map data is recorded and reading the data, and a GPS antenna 32 for receiving navigation information transmitted from a plurality of GPS (Global Positioning System) satellites, A gyro device 33 for detecting the traveling direction angle of the vehicle is connected. The navigation ECU 30 further receives the output signal of the vehicle speed sensor 41, and outputs the positional information and road information of the traveling road to the camera controller 22 and the alarm control ECU 10 described later.”),
an alarm override unit coupled to the vehicle alarm system to receive the one or more vehicle alarms from the vehicle alarm system, the alarm override unit coupled to the GPS unit and the memory and including a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors in a vehicle, cause the one or more processors to: (see Makoto pages 1-2 “a vehicle alarm system according to the present invention alerts a driver when a predetermined condition is satisfied based on road information and vehicle behavior. In a vehicle alarm device having an alarm means for issuing a warning” and “The alarm control ECU 10 includes a storage device 11 for accumulating and storing predetermined section information” and “The alarm control ECU 10 includes a storage device 11 for accumulating and storing predetermined section information that makes it difficult to set alarm control, and sensor groups (vehicle speed sensor 41, brake switch 42, yaw rate sensor 43) for acquiring vehicle state quantities. , Winker 44) are connected, and the output is sent to the display system 23 and the alarm device 12”),
determine based on the current location of the vehicle as determined by the GPS unit and the geographical indications stored in the memory whether the vehicle is approaching a designated geographic area (see Makoto fig. 3 and pages 3-4 “In step S9, it is determined whether or not the section where the vehicle is currently traveling corresponds to a predetermined section. The predetermined section is a set predetermined section stored in the storage device 11 as a section in which a false alarm has occurred in the past, or a section in which a false alarm is expected to occur based on road data sent from the navigation ECU 30”),
and in response to determining that the vehicle is approaching the designated geographic area, perform at least one of the following: suppress an alarm generated by the vehicle alarm system that would otherwise be activated when the vehicle is in the designated geographic area; or indicate via a user interface that a vehicle alarm, if activated when the vehicle is in the designated geographic area, is a false alarm (see Makoto pages 3-4 “it is determined whether or not the section where the vehicle is currently traveling corresponds to a predetermined section. The predetermined section is a set predetermined section stored in the storage device 11 as a section in which a false alarm has occurred in the past, or a section in which a false alarm is expected to occur based on road data sent from the navigation ECU 30. For example, it includes sharp curves, intersections, branch points, and the like. For example, the intersection DE shown in FIG. 2 is applicable. If it corresponds to this predetermined section, an erroneous alarm is expected to occur, so the alarm process is not performed and the process is terminated” and “By storing the section in which the false alarm is generated in the storage device 11 and referring to the stored information, it is possible to avoid the phenomenon that the false alarm is generated every time the vehicle travels in the same section”).
Regarding claim 2, Makoto discloses wherein the alarm comprises: an excessive speed alarm, a lane departure alarm, an excessive braking alarm, an excessive curve speed alarm, an electronic stability control (ESC) alarm, an electronic stability program (ESP) alarm, a roll stability control (RSC) alarm, and/or a roll stability program (RSP) alarm (see Makoto page 3 “it is determined whether or not the lane departure warning is currently being issued. If the alarm is being issued”).
Regarding claim 4, Makoto discloses wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: determine a condition that exists when the vehicle is approaching the designated geographic area (see Makoto fig. 3 and pages 1-4 “a vehicle alarm system according to the present invention alerts a driver when a predetermined condition is satisfied based on road information and vehicle behavior. In a vehicle alarm device having an alarm means for issuing a warning”, “The alarm control ECU 10 includes a storage device 11 for accumulating and storing predetermined section information” and “In step S9, it is determined whether or not the section where the vehicle is currently traveling corresponds to a predetermined section. The predetermined section is a set predetermined section stored in the storage device 11 as a section in which a false alarm has occurred in the past, or a section in which a false alarm is expected to occur based on road data sent from the navigation ECU 30”),
wherein the alarm is suppressed or indicated to be a false alarm in response to the condition satisfying a criterion (see Makoto pages 3-4 “. If it corresponds to this predetermined section, an erroneous alarm is expected to occur, so the alarm process is not performed and the process is terminated” and “By storing the section in which the false alarm is generated in the storage device 11 and referring to the stored information, it is possible to avoid the phenomenon that the false alarm is generated every time the vehicle travels in the same section”).
Regarding claim 5, Makoto discloses wherein the criterion comprises a designated time, a designated time period, a designated date, a designated weekday, a designated weather condition, and/or designated a road condition (see Makoto pages 1-2 “The present device is a device that uses the recognition results of the lane recognition system 2 and the navigation system 3 to generate a lane departure warning according to road conditions and driving conditions”).
Regarding claim 6, Makoto discloses wherein: the designated geographic area is marked in a map stored in a memory of the vehicle (see Makoto pages 1-3 “A CD-ROM device 31 for setting a CD-ROM in which map data is recorded and reading the data, and a GPS antenna 32 for receiving navigation information transmitted from a plurality of GPS (Global Positioning System) satellites”, “The map data read from the CD-ROM set by the CD-ROM device 31 is compared to correct the vehicle so that it is on the road”) and determining whether the vehicle is approaching the designated geographic area comprises: obtaining a location of the vehicle from a global positioning system (GPS) (see Makoto pages 2-3 “the navigation ECU 30 detects the own vehicle position from the navigation information received by the GPS antenna 32, the traveling direction of the own vehicle by the signal from the gyro device 33, and calculates the traveling distance from the output of the vehicle speed sensor 41” regarding the navigation ECU therefore determines the current position of the vehicle on the stored map by combining GPS signals with vehicle-speed and direction information and thus determining whether the vehicle is approaching the designated section of the map), and determining whether the location is within a threshold distance or time of the designated geographic area marked on the map (see Makoto pages 2-4 “in step S3, TLC (Time to Line Crossing) is calculated”, “the TLC calculated in step S3 is compared with the threshold value Tth. If TLC is equal to or greater than the threshold value Tth, it is determined that the possibility of lane departure is low” regarding computing a future vehicle locus and a Time to Line crossing (TLC) value based on the vehicle’s traveling direction and speed, wherein “TLC is represented by the time until the front-center position W of the vehicle reaches the position X where the locus intersects the white line and when TLC is less than threshold value Tth the process triggers a warning or suppression event).
Regarding claim 7, Makoto discloses wherein determining whether the vehicle is approaching the designated geographic area further comprises: determining whether a vector of the vehicle is in a direction of the designated geographic area marked on the map (see Makoto pages 2-4 “detects the own vehicle position from the navigation information received by the GPS antenna 32, the traveling direction of the own vehicle by the signal from the gyro device 33, and calculates the traveling distance from the output of the vehicle speed sensor 41” regarding using the gyro device 33 to obtain the traveling direction (vector) of the vehicle and combines that with position information from the GPS to determine the vehicle’s progress along a road section).
Regarding claim 9, Makoto discloses wherein: the designated geographic area is designated in a data structure stored in the vehicle (see Makoto pages 1-3 “the set predetermined section information stored in the storage device 11 represents a road section for which it has been determined that a false alarm has occurred in the past” and “The section information stored in the storage device 11 as the section in which the false alarm is generated may allow the driver to delete arbitrary information. This is because, for example, in the case of a section where a false alarm is temporarily expected, such as a construction section, it does not correspond to a section where a false alarm is expected after the completion of construction”).
Regarding claim 10, Makoto discloses wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: store a trigger-condition history for the alarm and associated geographic location for future evaluation (see Makoto pages 1-3 “it is determined whether the alarm occurrence frequency is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold fth. If the warning frequency is equal to or higher than the threshold value fth, it indicates that the lane departure warning is frequently issued. When a departure warning is issued, the driver usually performs careful driving so as not to deviate from the lane, and when a warning is frequently issued, it is highly likely that it is a false warning. For example, in the road shown in FIG. 2, when the area A is a construction section and an oncoming lane is passed between BCs, an erroneous alarm is likely to occur at the portion B. Therefore, in such a case, the section information (here, the section from B to C) in which the false alarm is generated in step S11 is stored in the storage device 11 as the set predetermined section. Then, the process ends without performing the alarm process” regarding the system records when abnormality frequent warnings are issued).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Makoto et al (JP2002092794A), (hereinafter Makoto) in further view of Zigan et al (CN115968490A), (hereinafter Zigan).
Regarding claim 3, Makoto fails to explicitly teach wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to determine which of a plurality of alarms to suppress.
However, Zigan teaches wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to determine which of a plurality of alarms to suppress (see Zigan page 12 “receive a vehicle-generated alert and use any relevant map data and/or static environmental data and/or sensor data to determine whether the vehicle-generated alert is a false alarm, and then through the RSU in the system 100 130 sends data about or relating to false alarms to other vehicles 140 and user equipment 180 in order to reduce or even prevent similar such false alarms from being issued thereafter”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Makoto for warning device for vehicle “to update false alarm map data and transmits false alarms and/or false alarm map data to at least one RSU” as taught by Zigan (page 12) in order to reduce or even avoid false alarms.
Regarding claim 8, Makoto fails to explicitly teach wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to determine which of a plurality of alarms to suppress.
However, Zigan teaches wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: receive an updated map with collated localized high-alarm-frequency locations (see Zigan pages 2, 8 and 10-11 “vehicle can make decisions not only based on its local awareness of the environment, but also consider data related to previous false alerts generated by other vehicles and/or user equipment, thereby at least reducing the occurrence of such false alerts”, “the data received at the data connector 126 is aggregated and stored in the data pool 121 . Some or all of the aggregated data is passed to the AAE 122, which performs functions including, at 206, updating the real-time status of all entities in the region. At 207, if the update step 206 identifies or detects an emergency event, data describing the event is forwarded to 208 to determine, for example, whether an alarm needs to be generated. If it is determined at 208 that an alarm needs to be generated, it may be further determined at 209 whether it is necessary to treat the alarm as a high priority alarm”, “The AAMS 400 may also communicate false alarms and/or false alarm map data to at least one RSU 130… within the coverage area of the RSU 130 Or one or more V2X devices 180 in a determined area around the location where the vehicle generated the alert. For any false alert, updated false alert data” and “and/or update the false alarm map data in the map data unit 405” regarding updating the map data with locations of frequent (high-rate) false alarm then transmitting those updates to vehicles and also the central-management and edge-gateway modules aggregate incident/alert data from vehicles and perform statistical analysis (steps 206-215) and then at “update step 206/209” update map data and redistribute it through RSUs to the on-board units and furthermore the data from many vehicles in the same geographic area are aggregated (“collated”) to form an update false-alarm map).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Makoto for warning device for vehicle “to update false alarm map data and transmits false alarms and/or false alarm map data to at least one RSU” as taught by Zigan (pages 10-12) in order to reduce or even avoid false alarms.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABDELLATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 am-5 pm 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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights