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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/357,718 filed on 7/24/2023.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 11-18, 20-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 6/23/2026.
This action is made NON-FINAL in response to the “Request for Continued Examination” filed on 6/23/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 11-18, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haney (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0178022 A1) in view of Tang (U.S. Patent 11,354,524 B1), in further view of Simmons (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0193726 A1).
In regard to Claim 1, Haney teaches a method comprising (see Abstract lines 1-4 teaching a vehicle-based system for location information exchange):
Receiving, by a first computing device comprising a geolocation device, an object identifier associated with an object, wherein the object is a vehicle or component of a vehicle (see Claim 8 teaching that a cellphone receives GPS data of a vehicle, based on an IP association with the vehicle);
Associating, by the first computing device, the object identifier with a location of the first computing device determined by the geolocation device (see Claim 4 teaching that the position of the vehicle is rendered on a map based on an association with the respective cellphone);
Storing, in a database, the object identifier and the associated location of the first computing device (see Figure 3 items 16, 18, Paragraph 24, Paragraph 96 lines 64-70 teaching that a server stores the position data of each wireless device, which all have unique identifiers);
Receiving, by a second computing device in communication with the database, a query for the object identifier (see Abstract lines 9-12, Paragraph 68 lines 10-14 teaching that a user of the system can request an update to the location of another user via a buddy watch server); and
Displaying, by a map application on the second computing device, the location associated with the object identifier (see Figure 5, Paragraph 10 lines 1-8, Paragraph 102 teaching a map display that depicts the location of another user 26).
Haney fails to teach wherein the object identifier is a barcode, a QR code, an alphanumeric identifier, a radio frequency identifier (RFID) indicator, or a combination thereof; and
Wherein the first computing device is not physically disposed within or secured to the object.
However, Tang teaches wherein the object identifier is a barcode, a QR code, an alphanumeric identifier, a radio frequency identifier (RFID) indicator, or a combination thereof (see Column 4 lines 38-46 teaching a vehicle identification system wherein a vehicle association tag may be an RFID signal or alphanumeric tag); and
Wherein the first computing device is not physically disposed within or secured to the object (see Abstract lines 1-7, Column 4 lines 38-46 teaching that the system scans a plurality of vehicles, and associates locations with each vehicle’s identification tag).
Here, the Examiner is interpreting the capability to scan multiple vehicles’ identification tags to indicate that the scanning component is not disposed within or secured to each of those vehicles.
Haney and Tang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that identify vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haney’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a system could externally detect the identification of a vehicle, the identification being associated with the vehicle and consisting of an alphanumeric code or RFID signal as taught by Tang. Doing so could improve a vehicle identification system by enabling it to determine the identifications of multiple vehicles, by increasing the accuracy and reliability of each vehicle identification, and by utilizing commonly-used identifiers such as VIN numbers, because the identifications would not be removable or changeable from each vehicle.
Haney further fails to teach wherein the object is free of a geolocation device.
However, Simmons teaches wherein the object is free of a geolocation device (see Paragraph 48 lines 10-13 teaching a vehicle inventory method wherein the vehicles do not contain GPS capability).
Haney and Simmons are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle location tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haney’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein vehicles that don’t contain GPS capabilities can still be tracked as taught by Simmons. Doing so could improve a vehicle tracking system by expanding its capabilities to vehicles with or without geolocation features.
In regard to Claim 2, Haney further teaches wherein the first and second computing devices are smartphones (see Figure 2A, Paragraph 61 lines 3-9 teaching that the devices transmitting and receiving the location data are wireless devices).
In regard to Claim 4, Haney further teaches displaying, by the map application, directions to the location associated with the object identifier of the object (see Figure 9, Paragraph 108 teaching that within the display, a user can view the direction to the location of another device, or see the device’s location on a map).
In regard to Claim 5, Haney further teaches tracking the location of the second computing device (see Paragraph 10 lines 1-8 teaching that the users can utilize the system to track the locations of other system users).
In regard to Claim 6, Haney fails to teach wherein the object identifier comprises an optically capturable object identifier or an alphanumeric object identifier.
However, Tang teaches wherein the object identifier comprises an optically capturable object identifier or an alphanumeric object identifier (see Column 6 lines 28-35 teaching a vehicle location determination system wherein a vehicle can be identified via a QR code).
Haney and Tang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that identify vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haney’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a vehicle can be identified by a visible identifier as taught by Tang. Doing so could increase the accuracy of a vehicle identification system by providing a redundant method of identifying a vehicle, in addition to multiple vehicle identification methods that are well-known in the vehicle industry.
In regard to Claim 7, Haney fails to teach wherein the object identifier comprises an optically capturable object identifier, and wherein the optically capturable object identifier comprises a barcode.
However, Tang teaches wherein the object identifier comprises an optically capturable object identifier, and wherein the optically capturable object identifier comprises a barcode (see Column 6 lines 28-35 teaching that the vehicle can be identified via a barcode).
Haney and Tang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that identify vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haney’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a vehicle can be identified by a barcode as taught by Tang. Doing so could increase the accuracy of a vehicle identification system by providing a redundant method of identifying a vehicle, in addition to multiple vehicle identification methods that are well-known in the vehicle industry.
In regard to Claim 9, Haney fails to teach wherein the object identifier comprises an RFID indicator.
However, Tang teaches wherein the identifier comprises an RFID indicator (see Column 6 lines 28-35 teaching that the vehicle can be identified via an RFID signal).
Haney and Tang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that identify vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haney’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a vehicle can be identified by an RFID signal as taught by Tang. Doing so could increase the accuracy of a vehicle identification system by providing a redundant method of identifying a vehicle, in addition to multiple vehicle identification methods that are well-known in the vehicle industry.
In regard to Claim 11, Haney further teaches wherein the object is a first object, the method further comprising (see Claim 8 teaching that the GPS information is associated with a vehicle):
Receiving, from a third computing device comprising a geolocation device, an object identifier associated with a second object, and
Associating, by the third computing device, the object identifier associated with the second object with a second location from the geolocation device of the third computing device (see Figures 2A, 3, Paragraph 99, Claim 8 teaching that multiple users can be connected via the system, so as to allow all users to be able to view the respective locations of other users based on the locations associated with their respective vehicles).
In regard to Claim 12, Haney further teaches associating a computing device identifier of the first computing device with the object (see Claim 8 teaching that the GPS information corresponds to a vehicle, while the device used to transmit the information to the communication system is a cellphone).
In regard to Claim 13, Haney further teaches a system comprising (see Abstract lines 1-4 teaching a vehicle-based system for location information exchange):
A plurality of objects, wherein each object of the plurality of objects comprises a respective object identifier (see Figures 2A, 3, Paragraph 99, Claim 8 teaching that multiple users can be connected via the system, so as to allow all users to be able to view the respective locations of other users based on the locations associated with their respective vehicles);
A computing network comprising a first computing device, a second computing device, and a central database in communication with each of the first and second computing devices, wherein each of the first and second computing devices comprises a geolocation device, wherein (see Figure 2A, Paragraph 61 lines 3-9, 17-19 teaching that the system uses a server to relay information between the user devices, which are wireless devices):
The second computing device is configured to receive an input of the respective identifier of the object, and receive the location associated with the object from the central database (see Figure 2A, Paragraph 79 lines 17-22, Claim 8 teaching that different wireless devices can monitor each other’s positions, which are associated with their respective vehicles).
The rest of Claim 13 is substantially similar to Claim 1. Please refer to the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 14, Haney further teaches wherein the second computing device is further configured to display, by the map application, directions to the location associated with the object identifier of the object from a current location of the second computing device (see Figure 9, Paragraph 108 teaching that within the display, a user can view the direction to the location of another device, or see the device’s location on a map).
Claim 15 is substantially similar to Claim 5 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 5 above for analysis.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claim 6 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 6 above for analysis.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to Claim 7 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 7 above for analysis.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to Claim 9 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 9 above for analysis.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to Claim 12 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 12 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 21, Haney further teaches wherein the first computing device is operated by a first user, and wherein the second computing device is operated by a second user (see Abstract lines 9-12, Paragraph 68 lines 10-14 teaching that a user of the system can request an update to the location of another user via a buddy watch server).
In regard to Claim 22, Haney further teaches receiving, by the first computing device, a query for a second object identifier integrated with a second object (see Abstract lines 1-12, Figure 13A, Paragraph 68 lines 10-14, Claim 7 teaching that a user of the system can request an update to the location of another user via a buddy watch server via an identification number).
Haney fails to teach wherein the second object is a vehicle or component of a vehicle.
However, Tang teaches wherein the second object is a vehicle or component of a vehicle (see Column 4 lines 38-46 teaching that the vehicle association tag may be an RFID signal or alphanumeric tag, such as VIN number).
Haney and Tang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that identify vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haney’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the identification being associated with the vehicle corresponds to the vehicle itself, not a mobile device contained within the vehicle or merely associated with the vehicle, as taught by Tang. Doing so could improve a vehicle identification system because the identifications would not be removable or changeable from each vehicle. This would increase accuracy and reliability when identifying vehicles.
Claims 23, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haney (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0178022 A1) in view of Tang (U.S. Patent 11,354,524 B1), in further view of Simmons (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0193726 A1), in further view of Ahn (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0093119 A1).
In regard to Claim 23, Haney fails to teach wherein the object is a component of a vehicle, the component comprising a chassis, a hood, a liftgate, or a large frame weldment.
However, Tang teaches wherein the object is a component of a vehicle, the component comprising a chassis, a hood, a liftgate, or a large frame weldment (see Column 4 lines 38-46 teaching that the vehicle association tag may be a VIN number).
Here, the Examiner in interpreting a VIN number as an identifier of a vehicle chassis.
Haney and Tang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that identify vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haney’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the object to be identified is the chassis of a vehicle as taught by Tang. Doing so could improve a vehicle identification system because the identifications would not be removable or changeable from each vehicle. This would increase accuracy and reliability when identifying vehicles.
Haney further fails to teach wherein the method further comprises receiving, from the central database, by the second computing device, a work order identifier or a sales order identifier associated with the component of the vehicle.
However, Ahn teaches wherein the method further comprises receiving, from the central database, by the second computing device, a work order identifier or a sales order identifier associated with the component of the vehicle (see Paragraph 4 lines 9-15 teaching a vehicle component monitoring system wherein a database and a vehicle management device exchange information regarding vehicle component work orders).
Haney and Ahn are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle information tracking systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haney’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein work order data for vehicle components is shared between a database and a device as taught by Ahn. Doing so could improve a vehicle tracking system by enabling it to anticipate preventative maintenance, track warranty claims, or reduce vehicle downtime.
In regard to Claim 24, Haney fails to teach wherein the object is a vehicle.
However, Tang teaches wherein the object is a vehicle (see Column 4 lines 38-46 teaching that the vehicle association tag may be a VIN number).
Here, the Examiner in interpreting a VIN number as an identifier of a vehicle.
Haney and Tang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that identify vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haney’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the object to be identified is the vehicle itself as taught by Tang. Doing so could improve a vehicle identification system because the identifications would not be removable or changeable from each vehicle. This would increase accuracy and reliability when identifying vehicles.
The rest of Claim 24 is substantially similar to Claim 23 (wherein the method further comprises receiving, from the central database, by the second computing device, a work order identifier or a sales order identifier associated with the vehicle). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 23 above for analysis.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments and remarks with regard to the 35 USC 103 rejections of Claims 1, 13, 22 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
In regard to Claims 1, 13, the Applicant asserts that that neither Haney nor Tang provides any motivation for modifying the location tracking system of Haney to incorporate a feature wherein the system could externally detect the identification of the vehicles of Haney at least because the GPS-enabled cellphones of Haney are already traveling with the vehicle. The Examiner disagrees. Haney teaches a tracking service that enables separate users to identify each other’s location, including vehicles associated with the users (see Abstract, Claim 1). Tang teaches a vehicle tracking system that determines the locations of tracked vehicles, based on each vehicle’s identification tag. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Haney’s invention with a way to track vehicles based on the vehicles themselves, rather than a cellphone contained within the vehicle. This could serve as a redundant method of identifying a vehicle, or distinguishing between the location of a vehicle and the location of a user in case of conflicting information.
The Applicant further submits that “modifying Haney to be free of a geolocation device would directly alter the fundamental operating principle of Haney, as the continuous location monitoring system would be rendered inoperable.” The Examiner disagrees. Claim 1 of the Instant Claim set discloses that “the object is free of a geolocation device” and that “the object is a vehicle or a component of a vehicle.” The Examiner has incorporated a new reference (Simmons) that anticipates this limitation, purely because the Haney reference fails to explicitly teach wherein the vehicles do not have geolocation capabilities. However, given that Haney teaches mobile devices that are associated with the vehicles, rather than incorporated within the vehicles themselves, it would be obvious (if not redundant) to a PHOSITA to combine the limitation wherein “the vehicle is free of a geolocation device” with Haley’s invention.
In regard to Claim 22, the Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the alleged first computing device of Haney, which is already associated with a vehicle, to receive a second object identifier associated with a second object, wherein the object is another vehicle or component of a vehicle. The Examiner disagrees. It would be obvious to a PHOSITA that a first user of a first vehicle with a first device associated with the first vehicle or first user might want to know the location of a second vehicle or a second user. A parent, for example, could possess an own vehicle and an own device associated with their vehicle or themself, and nonetheless desire to track the location of a child’s device or vehicle, or both.
All 35 USC 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 12, 14-18, 20 remain rejected under the rationales provided in the previous office action.
Claim 21 is rejected based on references relied upon in the previous office action.
Claims 23, 24 are rejected based on references relied upon in the previous office action, and a newly incorporated reference (Ahn).
The Applicant’s amendments, arguments, and remarks do not overcome these prior art rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure:
Chou (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0072177 A1) teaches a vehicle identification system wherein vehicle identification information associated with a mobile device is uploaded to a server (see Abstract).
Sarro (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0269554 A1) teaches a vehicle payment system wherein vehicle identification information associated with a mobile device is uploaded to a server (see Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W ARELLANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Ramon Mercado, can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/PAUL W ARELLANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights