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 .
This is a Final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 08 August 2025. Claims 1-12 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/2024 have been fully considered and are not persuasive in part. Amendments to claim 3 have been fully considered and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection to claim 3 has been withdrawn. Amendments to claim 1 and arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-10 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-10 is sustained. New claims 11-12 further recite an abstract idea and are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but is moot in view of new obviousness rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Interpretation
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:
a travel information acquisition section in claims 1 and 5
an environment information acquisition section in claim 1
an estimation section in claims 1-3
a notification section in claims 1 and 4
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 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.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a travel information acquisition section, an environment information acquisition section, an estimation section, and a notification section:
" FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a functional configuration of the CPU 30A. As illustrated in FIG. 4, the CPU 30A includes a travel information acquisition section 300, an environment information acquisition section 310, an estimation section 320, and a notification section 330. Each functional configuration is implemented by the CPU 30A reading and executing an output program stored in the ROM 30B", [¶ 47], Fig. 4
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1 – YES
Claim 1 is directed to a machine, Claim 6 is directed toward a machine. Therefore, claims 1 and 6 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claim 6 are analogous to each other so claim 10 and 18 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here.
Claim 1 recites:
A notification device comprising:
a travel information acquisition section that is configured to acquire travel information that a vehicle has traveled;
an environment information acquisition section that is configured to acquire, from satellite data, environment information at a location at which the vehicle has been present, based on the travel information of the vehicle which is acquired by the travel information acquisition section;
an estimation section that is configured to estimate a degree of contamination and tarnishing of the vehicle based on the environment information which is acquired by the environment information acquisition section,
and to compare the estimated degree of contamination and tarnishing with a predetermined threshold; and
a notification section that is configured to notify, in response to the estimated degree of contamination and tarnishing that equals or exceeds the predetermined threshold, a user of the vehicle of a timing for at least one of a vehicle wash or a vehicle inspection in order to extend an operating life of the vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, estimating a degree of contamination and tarnishing of the vehicle in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at environmental data collected (received, detected, based on data from a sensor, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally that the vehicle must be dirty and need a wash.
Examiner notes that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Here, the determination is a form of making evaluation and judgement based on observation (driver behavior).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites:
A notification device comprising:
a travel information acquisition section that is configured to acquire travel information that a vehicle has traveled;
an environment information acquisition section that is configured to acquire, from satellite data, environment information at a location at which the vehicle has been present, based on the travel information of the vehicle which is acquired by the travel information acquisition section;
an estimation section that is configured to estimate a degree of contamination and tarnishing of the vehicle based on the environment information which is acquired by the environment information acquisition section,
and to compare the estimated degree of contamination and tarnishing with a predetermined threshold; and
a notification section that is configured to notify, in response to the estimated degree of contamination and tarnishing that equals or exceeds the predetermined threshold, a user of the vehicle of a timing for at least one of a vehicle wash or a vehicle inspection in order to extend an operating life of the vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of acquire… and notify… the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform data gathering, displaying, sending and receiving steps. In particular, the receiving and communicating steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and performing communications for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impost any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 1 and 6 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps acquire… and notify… amounts to nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform data gathering, displaying, sending and receiving steps. In particular, the receiving and communicating steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and performing communications for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-6 and 7-12, do not recite any further limitations that causes the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 and 7-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 6.
Therefore, claims 1-12 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6-7 and 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weldemariam; Komminist et al. (US 20210070304 A1) in view of Accessor; Walter (US 20200126259 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Weldemariam teaches, A notification device comprising:
a travel information acquisition section that is configured to acquire travel information of a vehicle (Fig 1. Depicts Anticipated Routes Identifier 110 which acquires travel information of the vehicle, see at least, ¶25, 35, Fig. 1, Weldemariam);
an environment information acquisition section that is configured to acquire, from satellite data, environment information at a location at which the vehicle plans to travel, based on the travel information of the vehicle which is acquired by the travel information acquisition section (Fig 1. Depicts Route context analyzer 140 which acquires current and forecast environmental, weather data from satellite images for the travel routes indicated by the travel information of the vehicle. The environmental data and route information and is input into the route conditions analyzer 120 which invokes data and image analysis to determine one or more conditions of dust, mud, now, hail slush, see at least, ¶40-42, Fig. 1, Weldemariam);
an estimation section that is configured to estimate a degree of contamination and tarnishing of the vehicle based on the environment information which is acquired by the environment information acquisition section (Fig 1. Depicts Route dirtiness scorer 130 which processes the environment information and predicted road conditions of the planned route, see at least, ¶45, Fig. 1, Weldemariam);
and to compare the estimated degree of contamination and tarnishing with a predetermined threshold (Fig 5. Dirty level score > minimum threshold T 501, see at least, ¶60-63, Weldemariam); and
a notification section that is configured to notify, in response to the estimated degree of contamination and tarnishing that equals or exceeds the predetermined threshold, a user of the vehicle of a timing for at least one of a vehicle wash or a vehicle inspection in order to extend an operating life of the vehicle (The predictive vehicle wash service and auto-scheduling system 100 monitors a vehicle status and generates a message via text message or mobile phone alert and communicates to the user about a candidate car wash location and time of day. The automatic scheduling is based off a route dirtiness score exceeds a minimum threshold, see at least, ¶25-26, 67, Fig. 1, Fig. 5, Weldemariam).
Weldemariam does not explicitly teach environment information at a location at which the vehicle has traveled/has been present.
Accessor, directed to methods and systems for improving vehicle paint of a vehicle in a particular geographic region teaches environment information at a location at which the vehicle has traveled/has been present (Fig. 5 weather information 502 and location data 504 tracks historical location and weather measurements of the particular vehicle, see at least, ¶74, Accessor).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Weldemariam’s car wash prediction method to incorporate the teachings of Accessor which teaches environment information at a location at which the vehicle has traveled/has been present since they are both related to maintaining vehicle appearances and incorporation of the teachings of Accessor would improve the paint appearance of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 6, Weldemariam teaches, A notification device for maintenance and safe travel of a vehicle, the notification device comprising:
a memory (Fig. 6: Memory 16, see at least, ¶86, Fig.6, Weldemariam); and
a processor coupled to the memory (Fig. 6: Processor(s) 12, see at least, ¶86, Fig. 6, Weldemariam), wherein the processor is configured to :
acquire travel information of a vehicle (Fig 1. Depicts Anticipated Routes Identifier 110 which acquires travel information of the vehicle, see at least, ¶25, 35, Fig. 1, Weldemariam);
acquire, from satellite data, environment information at a location at which the vehicle plans to travel, based on the travel information of the vehicle (Fig 1. Depicts Route context analyzer 140 which acquires current and forecast environmental, weather data from satellite images for the travel routes indicated by the travel information of the vehicle. The environmental data and route information and is input into the route conditions analyzer 120 which invokes data and image analysis to determine one or more conditions of dust, mud, now, hail slush, see at least, ¶40-42, Fig. 1, Weldemariam);
estimate a degree of contamination and tarnishing of the vehicle based on the environment information (Fig 1. Depicts Route dirtiness scorer 130 which processes the environment information and predicted road conditions of the planned route, see at least, ¶45, Fig. 1, Weldemariam); and compare the estimated degree of contamination and tarnishing with a predetermined threshold (Fig 5. Dirty level score > minimum threshold T 501, see at least, ¶60-63, Weldemariam); and in response to the estimated degree of contamination and tarnishing that equals or exceeds the predetermined threshold, notify a user of a timing for at least one of a vehicle wash or a vehicle inspection in order to extend an operating life of the vehicle (The predictive vehicle wash service and auto-scheduling system 100 monitors a vehicle status and generates a message via text message or mobile phone alert and communicates to the user about a candidate car wash location and time of day. The automatic scheduling is based off a route dirtiness score exceeds a minimum threshold, see at least, ¶25-26, 67, Fig. 1, Fig. 5, Weldemariam).
Weldemariam does not explicitly teach acquire, information at a location at which the vehicle has been present.
Accessor, directed to methods and systems for improving vehicle paint of a vehicle in a particular geographic region teaches environment information at a location at which the vehicle has traveled/has been present (Fig. 5 weather information 502 and location data 504 tracks historical location and weather measurements of the particular vehicle, see at least, ¶74, Accessor).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Weldemariam’s dirtiness prediction method to incorporate the teachings of Accessor which teaches environment information at a location at which the vehicle has traveled/has been present since they are both related to maintaining vehicle appearances and incorporation of the teachings of Accessor would improve the paint appearance of the vehicle.
Regarding Claims 2 and 7, Weldemariam in view of Accessor teaches, The notification device according to claim 1 (re-claim2) and The notification device according to claim 6 (re-claim 7) wherein: in a case in which the vehicle plans to travel on at least one of a road on which yellow sand or volcanic ash is present, a rough road, an unpaved road, a coastal road or a snow- covered road, the estimation section is configured to set the degree of contamination and tarnishing higher than a case in which the vehicle has not traveled on the at least one of a road on which yellow sand or volcanic ash is present, a rough road, an unpaved road, a coastal road or a snow-covered road (dirtiness score value may increase based on road conditions such as dusty or snow covered then sanded and plowed roadway then decrease when the road is followed by a well-paved road, see at least, ¶46, Weldemariam).
Weldemariam does not explicitly teach in a case in which the vehicle has traveled on at least one of a road on which yellow sand or volcanic ash is present, a rough road, an unpaved road, a coastal road or a snow- covered road.
Accessor, directed to methods and systems for improving vehicle paint of a vehicle in a particular geographic region teaches in a case in which the vehicle has traveled on at least one of a road on which yellow sand or volcanic ash is present, a rough road, an unpaved road, a coastal road or a snow- covered road (vehicle in a coastal geographic region or heavy snowfall region, see at least, ¶41, Accessor).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Weldemariam’s car wash prediction method to incorporate the teachings of Accessor which teaches in a case in which the vehicle has traveled on at least one of a road on which yellow sand or volcanic ash is present, a rough road, an unpaved road, a coastal road or a snow- covered road since they are both related to maintaining vehicle appearances and incorporation of the teachings of Accessor would improve the paint appearance of the vehicle.
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Weldemariam in view of Accessor teaches, The notification device according to claim 1 wherein (re-claim2): and The notification device according to claim 6 wherein the processor is configured to (re-claim 7): the estimation section estimates the degree of contamination and tarnishing by inputting the travel information of the vehicle and the environment information at the location at which the vehicle into an estimation model, as a dataset (Fig.4 computes aggregated dirtiness from travel information and environmental information collected from sensor data and estimates a dirtiness score for the vehicle, see at least, ¶56-58, Weldemariam).
Weldemariam does not explicitly teach inputting the travel information of the vehicle and the environment information at the location at which the vehicle has been present into an estimation model that has learned from travel information of plural vehicles, environment information at a position at which each of the plural vehicles have been present, and the actual degree of contamination and tarnishing of the plural vehicles.
Accessor, directed to methods and systems for improving vehicle paint of a vehicle in a particular geographic region teaches, inputting the travel information of the vehicle and the environment information at the location at which the vehicle has been present into an estimation model that has learned from travel information of plural vehicles, environment information at a position at which each of the plural vehicles have been present (remote data server running machine learning algorithm configured to determine trends in paint conditions of vehicles based on past location and environmental data received from a plurality of vehicles, ¶44, Accessor), and the actual degree of contamination and tarnishing of the plural vehicles (Fig. 2, paint sensors 204 located on exterior surface 208 of the vehicle 202 collect actual degree of tarnishing of the paint, ¶24-26, Accessor).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Weldemariam’s car wash prediction method to incorporate the teachings of Accessor which teaches inputting the travel information of the vehicle and the environment information at the location at which the vehicle has been present into an estimation model that has learned from travel information of plural vehicles, environment information at a position at which each of the plural vehicles have been present, and the actual degree of contamination and tarnishing of the plural vehicles since they are both related to maintaining vehicle appearances and incorporation of the teachings of Accessor would improve the paint appearance of the vehicle.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weldemariam; Komminist et al. (US 20210070304 A1) in view of Accessor; Walter (US 20200126259 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7 , and 11-12 and further in view of Severe service requirements. Precision Tune Auto Care. (2015, September 24). https://www.precisiontune.com/severe-service-requirements-2/ .
Regarding Claim 3 and 8, Weldemariam in view of Accessor teaches, the notification device according to claim 1 (re-claim 3), and the notification device according to claim 6 (re-claim 8)
Weldemariam in view of Accessor does not explicitly teach wherein: in a case in which a travel distance of the vehicle, per unit time, is equal to or less than a predetermined distance, the estimation section is configured to set the degree of contamination and tarnishing higher than a case in which the travel distance of the vehicle, per unit time, is greater than the predetermined distance.
Precision Tune Autocare, directed to factory scheduled maintenance service and repairs for autos, SUVs, MiniVans, and Hybrids teaches, wherein: in a case in which a travel distance of the vehicle, per unit time, is equal to or less than a predetermined distance, the estimation section is configured to set the degree of contamination and tarnishing higher than a case in which the travel distance of the vehicle, per unit time, is greater than the predetermined distance (severe service maintenance schedule is recommended by car owners’ manual if most trips are less than a predetermined distance of four miles which causes increased wear on the vehicle requiring a more frequent maintenance routine than for vehicles which trips are greater than four miles wherein a regular service schedule is recommended, see at least, ¶1-2, Precision Tune Autocare).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Weldemariam in view of Accessor to incorporate the teachings of Precision Tune Autocare which teaches wherein: in a case in which a travel distance of the vehicle, per unit time, is equal to or less than a predetermined distance, the estimation section is configured to set the degree of contamination and tarnishing higher than a case in which the travel distance of the vehicle, per unit time, is greater than the predetermined distance since they are both related to Vehicle maintenance and incorporation of the teachings of Precision Tune Autocare would increase the accuracy determination of wear on the vehicle since shorter trip distances cause higher wear and tear or tarnishing of the vehicle.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weldemariam; Komminist et al. (US 20210070304 A1) in view of Accessor; Walter (US 20200126259 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7 , and 11-12 and further in view of FISCHER; Joel J. et al. (US 20160042576 A1)
Regarding Claim 4 and 10, Weldemariam in view of Accessor teaches, The notification device according to claim 1, wherein: the notification section is (re-claim 4) and the notification device according to claim 6, wherein: the processor is (re-claim 9) configured to provide notification of the timing with respect to a vehicle wash (The predictive vehicle wash service and auto-scheduling system 100 monitors a vehicle status and generates a message via text message or mobile phone alert and communicates to the user about a candidate car wash location and time of day. The automatic scheduling is based off a route dirtiness score which is the estimation result, see at least, ¶25-26, Fig. 1, Weldemariam), based on at least one of a maintenance history of the vehicle or a wash history of the vehicle (Fig. 4 depicts a method to generate a vehicle dirtiness score 150 includes historical frequency of car washes 401, see at least, ¶54, Fig. 4, Weldemariam). (see at least, ¶X, Ref1).
Weldemariam in view of Accessor does not explicitly teach, provide notification of the timing with respect to a necessary maintenance item and a vehicle wash.
Fischer, directed to providing maintenance reminders for a vehicle according to a vehicle maintenance schedule teaches, provide notification of the timing with respect to a necessary maintenance item and a vehicle wash (Fig. 4 depicts a message 402 or notification of a necessary maintenance item and a vehicle wash notification on a user interface 400 see at least, ¶46, Fig. 4, Fischer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Weldemariam in view of Accessor’s method notifying the vehicle user vehicle of a car wash to incorporate the teachings of Fischer which teaches provide notification of the timing with respect to a necessary maintenance item and a vehicle wash since they are both related to vehicle maintenance and incorporation of the teachings of Fischer would reduce the effort of the driver to complete both a car was and mandatory maintenance during the same visit.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weldemariam; Komminist et al. (US 20210070304 A1) in view of Accessor; Walter (US 20200126259 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7 , and 11-12 and further in view of XIE, WEI et al. (CN 113378701 A) (Machine translation attached) and Barfield, JR.; James Ronald et al. (US 20160093212 A1)
Regarding Claim 5 and 10, Weldemariam in view of Accessor teaches, The notification device according to claim 1, wherein: the travel information acquisition section is configured to (re- claim 5) and he notification device according to claim 6, wherein: the processor is configured to (re-claim 10) .
Weldemariam in view of Accessor does not explicitly teach, acquire the travel information of the vehicle based on satellite data acquired by capturing a code that is disposed at an upper part of the vehicle and that identifies the vehicle.
Xie, directed to unmanned ground vehicle status monitoring method teaches, acquire the travel information of the vehicle based on aerial images acquired by capturing a code that is disposed at an upper part of the vehicle and that identifies the vehicle (drone aerial photography uses the drone camera to take a global picture of the AGV(ground vehicles) A heading feature identifier or code (pictured in Fig.2) and AGV number is fixed to the top of the AGV. The global image is processed identifying the heading feature identifier to obtain the position and heading angle of each AGV, see at least, ¶n0005-0012, Fig. 2, Xie).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Weldemariam in view of Accessor to incorporate the teachings of Xie which teaches acquire the travel information of the vehicle based on aerial images acquired by capturing a code that is disposed at an upper part of the vehicle and that identifies the vehicle. since they are both related to localization of autonomous vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Xie would increase accuracy of locating the vehicle by correlating actual location with a global image of the environment.
Barfield, directed to Aerial images, such as images from satellites or other aerial imaging devices, may be used to assist in responding to the occurrence of events (such as vehicle accidents or other emergency events) or conditions teaches, acquiring aerial images of vehicles using satellites (Fig5 depicts satellite 520 taking an aerial image of a vehicle, see at least, ¶43, Fig. 5, Barfield).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified the invention of Weldemariam in view of Accessor and Xie’s method of retrieving aerial images to incorporate the teachings of Barfield which teaches acquiring aerial images of vehicles using satellites since they are both related to monitoring vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Barfield would increase the image range or reach on a global scale since satellites have a larger field of view than drones flying at a lower altitude.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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.Khuu, Irene
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664