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 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on
9/18/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 teaches “an object identifier integrated with an object, wherein the object is a vehicle or component of a vehicle.” The Applicant has submitted this amendment to distinguish the Instant Application from “GPS-enabled cellphones moving with the vehicle,” rather than the information being characteristic of the vehicle itself. The Examiner was unable to find support for this narrowing of the claim scope in the Specification. The Applicant should amend this claim or distinctly point out the support for this amended limitation in the Specification.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to Claim 1 in this regard, and is rejected under the same rationale.
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 1-20 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 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, from a second computing device, a query for the object 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 object identifier (see Figure 5, Paragraph 102 teaching a map display that depicts the location of another user 26).
Haney fails to teach wherein the object identifier is integrated with the object; and
Wherein the first computing device is not physically disposed within or secured to the object.
However, Tang teaches wherein the object identifier is integrated with the object (see Column 4 lines 41-46 teaching that the vehicle identification tag can be the vehicle’s VIN number); 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 inherent to or integrated with the vehicle as taught by Tang. Doing so could improve a vehicle identification system by enabling it to determine the identifications of multiple vehicles, and by increasing the accuracy and reliability of each vehicle identification, because the identifications would not be removable or changeable from each vehicle.
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 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.
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 object 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 8, Haney further teaches wherein the object identifier comprises an alphanumeric object 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 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 10, Haney further teaches wherein the object 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 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 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.
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.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments and remarks with regard to the 35 USC § 102 rejections of Claims 1, 13 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
The Examiner asserts that the amended limitations within Claims 1, 13 are taught by the secondary reference (Tang) used in the previous office action. Please see the 35 USC § 103 rejection of Claim 1 above, starting at the section beginning with “Haney fails to teach” for analysis. Claim 13 has been rejected for the same rationale.
All 35 USC § 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn, and new 112(a) rejections have been introduced in light of the amendments.
Claims 2-12, 14-20 remain rejected under the rationales provided in the previous office action.
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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
December 19, 2025
Prosecution Insights