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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 1 teaches “[r]eceiving, from a first computing device comprising a geolocation device, an identifier associated with an object, wherein the object is a vehicle or component of a vehicle . . . [a]ssociating, by the first computing device, the identifier associated with the object with a location from the geolocation device.” The Examiner was unable to ascertain what the phrase “associated with an object” means, and is interpreting the phrase to mean that the device and the object are paired, co-located, or in communication with each other.
Furthermore, the Examiner was unable to ascertain whether the GPS data is being retrieved from the object by the computing device, or whether the GPS data is generated at the computing device. The Examiner is interpreting these limitations to mean that the location of a vehicle is shared to, or generated by, a mobile device that is in communication, or co-located with the vehicle, and that location data is shared by the mobile device, which has an identifier (like a phone number or IP address) tied to it.
Claim 1 should be amended to more clearly convey the meanings of these limitations, consistent with the Instant Specification.
Claims 2-12 are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5, 8, 10-15, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haney (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0178022 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, from a first computing device comprising a geolocation device, an 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 identifier associated with the object with a location from 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 identifier associated with the vehicle and the associated location from the geolocation 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, from a second computing device, a query for the identifier (see Paragraph 68 lines 10-14 teaching that a user of the system can request an update to the location of another user); and
Displaying, by a map application, the location associated with the identifier of the object (see Figure 5, Paragraph 102 teaching a map display that depicts the location of another user 26).
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 3, Haney further teaches wherein the geolocation device is a GPS device (see Abstract lines 1-4 teaching that the devices transmit GPS data).
In regard to Claim 4, Haney further teaches displaying, by the map application, directions to the location associated with the 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 8, Haney further teaches wherein the identifier comprises an alphanumeric identifier (see Figure 10, Paragraph 31 teaching that other users can be stored in a user’s phone under a label, such as “INST01”).
In regard to Claim 10, Haney further teaches wherein the identifier comprises a plurality of identifying data (see Figure 9, Paragraph 108 lines 1-8 teaching that the labels of other users can correspond to a variety of information, such as time of last position update, latitude, longitude, direction from the user, etc.).
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 identifier associated with a second object, and associating, by the third computing device, the 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, and wherein the first computing device is not physically installed within or secured to 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).
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that cellphones are not usually attached or secured to vehicles.
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 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 (that the first computing device receives identifiers associated with objects and associates a location from the geolocation device of the first computing device with the object, that the database stores the identifier associated with the object and the associated location from the geolocation device, that the second computing device displays, by a map application, the location associated with the identifier of the object, and that each object is a vehicle or a component of a vehicle). 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 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 19 is substantially similar to Claim 10 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 10 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.
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 6, 7, 9, 16-18 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 regard to Claim 6, Haney fails to teach wherein the identifier comprises an optically capturable identifier.
However, Tang teaches wherein the identifier comprises an optically capturable 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 optically capturable identifier comprises a barcode.
However, Tang teaches wherein the optically capturable 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 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.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claims 6, 8 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejections of Claims 6, 8 above for analysis.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to Claims 6, 7 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejections of Claims 6, 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.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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 3667B
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3667
June 16, 2025