The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-22 are pending and examined. Claims 1-2, 12, and 14 are currently amended. Claims 3 and 13 are cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument as to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-22 under AIA 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection has been carefully considered. Applicant does not provide any substantive argument and simply alleges that rejection is moot in view of amendment and Examiner’s interview. As the rejection is proper, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s amendment and argument as to claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-22 rejected under 35 USC 112b rejections is not persuasive. Applicant does not provide any substantive argument and simply alleges that rejection is moot in view of amendment and Examiner’s interview. As the rejection is proper, the rejection is maintained However, amendment has raised new rejection under 35 USC 112a as raised in this Office Action. Applicant does not amend or argue against “controller” being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the corresponding structure of the controller is a processor described in the specification as performing the claimed function.
Applicant’s argument with respect to rejection to claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Hayward, US 9679487 B1 have been carefully considered. Applicant does not provide any substantive argument and simply alleges that rejection is moot in view of amendment and Examiner’s interview. As the rejection is proper, the rejection is maintained.
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 1-2, 4-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Analysis for Independent Claims 1 and 12:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) (Step 2A Prong 1), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A Prong 2), and if so, re-evaluate whether the inventive concept is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (Step 2B).
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: statutory category
Independent claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a machine and process respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims and the other claims recite a system and method to determine whether the vehicle is a first vehicle or a subsequent vehicle, selectively enable a support mode, selectively launch applications as recited in independent claims 1 and 12. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by a controller”. That is, other than reciting “by the controller” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the controller” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of by a computing device does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The claim recites additional elements of determining whether a vehicle is a first vehicle or second vehicle, enabling and launching application for respective vehicle. The determining is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the outputting step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The enabling and launching steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting result from the determining step), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The enabling merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle to vehicle communication environment.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No)
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determining and enabling steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that functionality of mobile device and vehicle display for first responder at an incidence scene is well known [0001]. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2, 4-11, 21 and 14-20, 22:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 2, 4-11, 21 are directed to “a machine’. The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Claims 14-20, 22 are directed to a “method” The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”.
Claims 2, 4-11, 21 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2, 4-11, 21 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Claims 14-20, 22 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 12 applies. Claims 14-20, 22 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2, 4-11, 21 and 14-20, 22 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2, 4-11, 21 and 14-20, 22 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements in claims 2, 4-11, 21 and 14-20, 22 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis). Claims 2, 4-11, 21 and 14-20, 22 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Dependent claims 2, 4-11, 21 and 14-20, 22 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 2, 4-11, 21 and 14-20, 22 are not patent eligible. Overall, claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-22 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 claim(s) contains 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amended limitation as recited in independent claims 1 and 12, “prior to enabling the first vehicle support mode or the subsequent vehicle support mode, selectively launch: respective initial applications for presentation at the vehicle display and the mobile display; after enabling the first vehicle support mode, selectively launch one or more of: a first application for presentation at the vehicle display, and a second application for presentation at the mobile display, the first application and the second application for
supporting occupants of the first vehicle; and after enabling the subsequent vehicle support mode, selectively launch one or more of: a third application for presentation at the vehicle display, and a fourth application for presentation at the mobile display, the third application and the fourth application for supporting occupants of the subsequent vehicle” as recited in independent claims 1 and 12 has no specification support for the amendment. Nowhere in the specification discloses the sequence of enablement as claimed in the limitations. Therefore, amended limitations as recited in independent claims 1 and 12 constitutes new matter.
Dependent claims 2, 4-11, and 14-22 are rejected based on dependency on rejected base claims 1 and 12 respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim features “first application”, “second application”, “third application”. and “fourth application” are unclear and indefinite. What is application in the context of application? Application is not defined in the application. However, “application”, to the ordinary people skilled in the art, means software program designed for end-users to perform task. For examination purpose, “first application”, “second application”, “third application”. and “fourth application” are interpreted as software program or protocol to perform tasks. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected because “first application for presentation”, “second application for presentation”, “third application for presentation”, “fourth application for presentation” as recited is indefinite and unclear for the meaning of application. According to MPEP 2161 and relevant case law, an adequate disclosure for a software algorithm requires a detailed description of the steps (e.g., flowcharts, pseudocode, or formulas) that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to program the computer to achieve the claimed function, rather than merely stating a functional result. In the instant specification, such algorithm is missing from the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2, 4-11, and 14-22 are rejected based on dependency on rejected base claims 1 and 12 respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “controller” as recited in claims 1-2, 5-6, and 9-11 to perform function to “selectively enable”, “control”, “receive”, and “communicate”.
“controller” as recited in claim 16 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The written description [0046] discloses “controller (e.g., a processor, and the like, and hereafter the controller) that are communicatively coupled to each other”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of the controller is a processor described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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 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.
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, 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, 4-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Hayward, US 9679487 B1.
As to claim 1, Hayward teaches a system comprising:
a vehicle (vehicle 202.1 in Fig. 2) comprising:
a vehicle display (“Upon receiving notification alerts from another telematics collection system, aspects include telematics collection system 100 generating alerts via any suitable audio, video, and/or tactile techniques. For example, alerts may be generated via a display implemented by mobile computing device 110 and/or on-board computer 114”, C10L42-47);
a mobile device (mobile device 204.1 in Fig. 2) comprising: a mobile display (“Upon receiving notification alerts from another telematics collection system, aspects include telematics collection system 100 generating alerts via any suitable audio, video, and/or tactile techniques. For example, alerts may be generated via a display implemented by mobile computing device 110 and/or on-board computer 114”, C10L42-47), the vehicle and the mobile device communicatively coupled to each other (vehicle 202.1 communicated with mobile device 204.1 in Fig. 2);
a transceiver (“communicate with one or more satellites and/or wireless transmitters to determine a location of computing device 300. Location acquisition unit 320 may use “Assisted Global Positioning System” (A-GPS), satellite GPS, or any other suitable global positioning protocol (e.g., the GLONASS system operated by the Russian government, the Galileo system operated by the European Union, etc.) to determine a geographic location of computing device 300”, C18L52-60); and
at least one controller configured to:
determine, via the transceiver, whether the vehicle is a first vehicle or a subsequent vehicle to arrive at an incident scene (Fig 2 and related text; “method may include: (1) receiving, by one or more processors, first and second geographic location data indicative of a geographic location of a first and a second vehicle, respectively; (2) receiving, by one or more processors, first and second telematics data indicative of a motion of the first and the second vehicle, respectively; (3) determining, by one or more processors, whether an anomalous condition is present at, and/or in the vicinity of, the geographic location of the first vehicle based upon the first telematics data”, C2L41-52);
when the vehicle is the first vehicle to arrive at the incident scene, selectively enable a first vehicle support mode at one or more of the vehicle display and the mobile
display (support communication protocols for different computing devices and mobile devices, C17L49-C18L21; “with wireless communication technology, the application and/or software module deployed on a smart phone or other mobile device may communicate with smart vehicles and infrastructure (and/or remote servers and other mobile devices). The telematics application and/or software module may be programmed to provide voice alerts: such as on a two lane road “do not pass-a vehicle is approaching” or “high speed vehicle is approaching to your left (or right);” “traffic light will turn in 10 seconds;” “turn left to find an open parking space;” “traffic is stopped 1.5 miles ahead;” “traffic has slowed to 20 mph 1.5 miles (or 2 blocks) ahead;” “recommended speed for turn ahead is 30 mph;” and/or “ice on bridge (or ramp) ahead”. As an example, a first mobile device may be traveling in a vehicle. The first mobile device may collect telematics data and/or other data, such as via a telematics application running on one or more processors mounted within the first mobile device. The first mobile device (and/or the telematics application) may detect a travel event from the data collected.”, C6L42-C7L12): selectively enable:
Hayward does not explicitly teach the system comprising:
a first application for presentation at the vehicle display; and a second application for presentation at the mobile display;
when the vehicle is the subsequent vehicle to arrive at the incident scene: selectively enable a subsequent vehicle support mode at one or more of the vehicle
display and the mobile display;
prior to enabling the first vehicle support mode or the subsequent vehicle support
mode, selectively launch: respective initial applications for presentation at the vehicle
display and the mobile display;
after enabling the first vehicle support mode, selectively launch one or more of: a
first application for presentation at the vehicle display, and a second application for
presentation at the mobile display, the first application and the second application for
supporting occupants of the first vehicle; and
after enabling the subsequent vehicle support mode, selectively launch one or
more of: a third application for presentation at the vehicle display, and a fourth
application for presentation at the mobile display, the third application and the fourth application for supporting occupants of the subsequent vehicle.
However, Hayward teaches support communication protocols for different computing devices and mobile devices (C17L49-C18L21). Hayward also teaches alerts may be generated via a display implemented by mobile computing device 110 and/or on-board computer 114”, C10L42-47, and telematics application is run and displayed on both smart phone and on one or more processors in vehicle (C7L9-12). Hayward teaches both first vehicle and first mobile device, second vehicle and second mobile devices have similar functionality in display screens (Fig. 2 and related text). Hayward also discloses that the second vehicle is able to generate alert at dangerous travel event via telematics application after receiving message from the first vehicle to the first vehicle (C7L9-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the navigation method in Hayward 's teaching by including a first application for presentation at the vehicle display; and a second application for presentation at the mobile display; and when the vehicle is the subsequent vehicle to arrive at the incident scene: selectively enable a subsequent vehicle support mode at one or more of the vehicle display and the mobile display; prior to enabling the first vehicle support mode or the subsequent vehicle support mode, selectively launch: respective initial applications for presentation at the vehicle display and the mobile display; after enabling the first vehicle support mode, selectively launch one or more of: a first application for presentation at the vehicle display, and a second application for presentation at the mobile display, the first application and the second application for supporting occupants of the first vehicle; and after enabling the subsequent vehicle support mode, selectively launch one or more of: a third application for presentation at the vehicle display, and a fourth application for presentation at the mobile display, the third application and the fourth application for supporting occupants of the subsequent vehicle to improve road safety (Hayward: C5L16).
As to claim 2, Hayward teaches the system wherein the at least one controller comprises one or more of:
an In-Car Processor (ICP) of the vehicle (“vehicle on-board computers (on-board computer 114”, C17L8); and
a mobile processor of the mobile device (“one or more processors mounted within the first mobile device”, C7L12),
and wherein the transceiver comprises a vehicle-to-vehicle transceiver (communication transceiver 203a in Fig. 2 which communicates between two mobile devices located in respective vehicles 202.1 and 202.2).
As to claim 4, Hayward teaches the system wherein: the second application is a same as the fourth application; or the second application is different from the fourth application (describes software applications performing may be same or different tasks for first and second vehicles, C5L31-49).
As to claim 5, Hayward teaches the system wherein the at least one controller is further configured to determine, via the transceiver, whether the vehicle is the first vehicle or the subsequent vehicle to arrive at the incident scene by one or more of: communicating, via the transceiver, with other vehicles at the incident scene (Fig. 2 and related text; vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) wireless communication and/or data transmission); and communicating, via the transceiver, with a cloud server configured to track vehicles at the incident scene (Fig. 2 and related text; cloud network communication to vehicle).
As to claim 6, Hayward teaches the system wherein the at least one controller is further configured to:
control the mobile display to change based on interactions with the vehicle display (Figs. 2-3 and 5 and related text; “FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary method 500 of generating, displaying, and/or sending an alert based upon telematics data in accordance with an exemplary aspect of the present disclosure. In the present aspect, the method 500 may be implemented by any suitable computing device (e.g., mobile computing devices 204.1 and 204.2, external computing device 206, and smart infrastructure component 208, as shown in FIG. 2). In one aspect, the method 500 may be performed by one or more processors, applications, and/or routines, such as any suitable portion of controller 340, software applications 344, and/or software routines 352, for example, as shown in FIG. 3.
The method 500 may start when one or more processors receive geographic location data and/or telematics data from a first and a second respective vehicle (block 502). The geographic location data may include, for example, latitude and longitude coordinates obtained by a mobile computing device and/or an on-board computer located within each vehicle. The telematics data may include, for example, one or more sensor metrics indicative of a motion of each vehicle, timestamp data, road type data, population density data, and any other suitable data indicative of a status of the device from which it is received, as previously discussed with reference to FIG. 3 (block 502). The geographic location data and/or telematics data may be generated, for example, by one or more mobile computing devices and/or on-board computers located within, or otherwise associated with, the first and second vehicles.”, C29L24-50); and
control the vehicle display to change based on respective interactions with the mobile display (Figs. 2-3 and 5 and related text; “FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary method 500 of generating, displaying, and/or sending an alert based upon telematics data in accordance with an exemplary aspect of the present disclosure. In the present aspect, the method 500 may be implemented by any suitable computing device (e.g., mobile computing devices 204.1 and 204.2, external computing device 206, and smart infrastructure component 208, as shown in FIG. 2). In one aspect, the method 500 may be performed by one or more processors, applications, and/or routines, such as any suitable portion of controller 340, software applications 344, and/or software routines 352, for example, as shown in FIG. 3. The method 500 may start when one or more processors receive geographic location data and/or telematics data from a first and a second respective vehicle (block 502). The geographic location data may include, for example, latitude and longitude coordinates obtained by a mobile computing device and/or an on-board computer located within each vehicle. The telematics data may include, for example, one or more sensor metrics indicative of a motion of each vehicle, timestamp data, road type data, population density data, and any other suitable data indicative of a status of the device from which it is received, as previously discussed with reference to FIG. 3 (block 502). The geographic location data and/or telematics data may be generated, for example, by one or more mobile computing devices and/or on-board computers located within, or otherwise associated with, the first and second vehicles.”, C29L24-50).
As to claim 7, Hayward teaches the system wherein the first application, the second application, the third application, and the fourth application are default applications determined at least partially on vehicle arrival order at incident scenes (C6L42-C7L12; “FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary method 500 of generating, displaying, and/or sending an alert based upon telematics data in accordance with an exemplary aspect of the present disclosure. In the present aspect, the method 500 may be implemented by any suitable computing device (e.g., mobile computing devices 204.1 and 204.2, external computing device 206, and smart infrastructure component 208, as shown in FIG. 2). In one aspect, the method 500 may be performed by one or more processors, applications, and/or routines, such as any suitable portion of controller 340, software applications 344, and/or software routines 352, for example, as shown in FIG. 3. The method 500 may start when one or more processors receive geographic location data and/or telematics data from a first and a second respective vehicle (block 502). The geographic location data may include, for example, latitude and longitude coordinates obtained by a mobile computing device and/or an on-board computer located within each vehicle. The telematics data may include, for example, one or more sensor metrics indicative of a motion of each vehicle, timestamp data, road type data, population density data, and any other suitable data indicative of a status of the device from which it is received, as previously discussed with reference to FIG. 3 (block 502). The geographic location data and/or telematics data may be generated, for example, by one or more mobile computing devices and/or on-board computers located within, or otherwise associated with, the first and second vehicles.”, C29L24-50).
As to claim 8, Hayward teaches the system wherein the first application, the second application, the third application, and the fourth application are further modifiable or replaceable after the vehicle arrives at the incident scene (Fig. 5 and related text; C7L9-40).
As to claim 9, Hayward teaches the system wherein the at least one controller is further configured to: when the vehicle is the subsequent vehicle to arrive at the incident scene: selectively enable the third application as a function of a determination of a respective first application currently enabled at a respective vehicle display of the first vehicle (C10L42-47, C7L9-12, C7L9-40).
As to claim 10, Hayward teaches the system wherein the at least one controller is further configured to:
when the vehicle is the first vehicle to arrive at the incident scene: receive input for one or more of the first application and the second application (“with wireless communication technology, the application and/or software module deployed on a smart phone or other mobile device may communicate with smart vehicles and infrastructure (and/or remote servers and other mobile devices). The telematics application and/or software module may be programmed to provide voice alerts: such as on a two lane road “do not pass-a vehicle is approaching” or “high speed vehicle is approaching to your left (or right);” “traffic light will turn in 10 seconds;” “turn left to find an open parking space;” “traffic is stopped 1.5 miles ahead;” “traffic has slowed to 20 mph 1.5 miles (or 2 blocks) ahead;” “recommended speed for turn ahead is 30 mph;” and/or “ice on bridge (or ramp) ahead”. As an example, a first mobile device may be traveling in a vehicle. The first mobile device may collect telematics data and/or other data, such as via a telematics application running on one or more processors mounted within the first mobile device. The first mobile device (and/or the telematics application) may detect a travel event from the data collected.”, C6L42-C7L12; C10L42-47; C7L9-12); and
communicate, via the transceiver with the subsequent vehicle to arrive at the incident scene to cause a respective controller of the subsequent vehicle to arrive at the incident scene to update one or more of the third application and the fourth application based on the input (C10L42-47, C7L9-12, C7L9-40).
As to claim 11, Hayward teaches the system wherein the at least one controller is further configured to:
when the vehicle is the subsequent vehicle to arrive at the incident scene: receive input for one or more of the third application and the fourth application; and
communicate, via the transceiver with the first vehicle to arrive at the incident scene to cause a respective controller of the first vehicle to arrive at the incident scene to update one or more of the first application and the second application based on the input (C10L42-47, C7L9-12, C7L9-40).
As to claim 17, it is a method claim that recites substantially the same limitations as the corresponding apparatus claims 7 and 8 combined. As such, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for claims 7 and 8 combined and are incorporated herein.
As to claims 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20, they are method claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the corresponding apparatus claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11. As such, claims 29, 30, 31 and 32 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for corresponding claims 16, 17, 18, and 19 and are incorporated herein.
As to claims 21 and 22, Hayward teaches the system and method wherein one or more of: respective functionality of the first application and the second application are different from each other, such that processing performed by the vehicle and the mobile device is not duplicated (same or different information or processing is presented in vehicle display and mobile device display, Figs. 4A, B, and 5 and related text); and
respective functionality of the third application and the fourth application are different from each other, such that processing performed by the vehicle and the mobile device is not duplicated (Figs. 4A, B and related text shows screen display information is different and is not duplicated).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and Figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi, can be reached on (313)446-4821. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/YUEN WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights