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. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided . The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: (1) The 1 st sentence repeats the title (2) The 1 st sentence uses the phrase “ This disclosure relates to ..”, which can be implied. (3) The 2 nd line uses the legal word “thereof”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudguiga et al. ( US 20220239463 A1 ) in view of Kellermeier et al. ( US 20090243925 A1 ). Regarding claim 1, Boudguiga discloses a privacy preserving method ( Abstract discloses “… confidentially processing the kinematic data of a vehicle ..” ; Fig. 1 ) , the method comprising: receiving, by a fleet manager of a privacy preserving device, a current location data of a vehicle ( Fig. 2, vehicle 210; [0028] discloses vehicle sensor data e.g. GPS; wherein the location data is interpreted as being part of the sensor data; fleet manager interpreted as AP 220 ) , wherein the current location data is homomorphically encrypted through a homomorphic encryption technique ( [0036] discloses homomorphic encryption ) ; randomly generating, by the fleet manager, at least two secure values corresponding to the current location data of the vehicle ( [0036] discloses “… the vehicle encrypts data by means of symmetric encryption, preferably stream encryption, using a secret key K.sub.sym.sup.car . It further encrypts this secret key by homomorphic encryption, by means of the public key HE.pk.sub.pub.sup.vsp , of a homomorphic encryption asymmetric cryptosystem …”; wherein the two secure values are as underlined above ) ; combining, by the fleet manager, the at least two secure values with the current location data of the vehicle (Fig. 2, step 262; [0040] ); sharing, by the fleet manager, a combination of the current location data and the at least two secure values to a computing server ( Fig. 2, steps 262, 272; [0040] – [0043] ) ; and computing, by the computing server, the current location data of the vehicle obfuscated with the at least two secure values to obtain a computed result ( [0043] discloses decryption done; wherein decryption would generate the location data ) . Boudguiga does not disclose geofencing and wherein the computed result determines if the vehicle is within a predefined geofencing region based on one or more geofencing criteria. In the same field of endeavor, however, Kellermeier discloses geofencing and wherein the computed result determines if the vehicle is within a predefined geofencing region based on one or more geofencing criteria ( Abstract; Fig. 2, blocks 305, 306; [0062] ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method, as taught by Kellermeier , in the system of Boudguiga because this would allow the fleet manager to know if the vehicle is within the geofence or not. Regarding claim 5, Boudguiga does not disclose halting the vehicle through an immobilizer installed in the vehicle when the vehicle reaches outside of the predefined geofencing region. In the same field of endeavor, however, Kellermeier discloses halting the vehicle through an immobilizer installed in the vehicle when the vehicle reaches outside of the predefined geofencing region ( [0004], especially last line; [0047] ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method, as taught by Kellermeier , in the system of Boudguiga because immobilizing the vehicle when outside the geofence would ensure that the vehicle is not stolen. Claim 7 is similarly analyzed as claim 1 , with claim 7 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations. Memory is disclosed by Boudguiga ([0030]). Processor is inherent in all Fig. 2 elements 210 – 240. Claim 11 is similarly analyzed as claim 5. Claim 13 is similarly analyzed as claim 1 . Claim 17 is similarly analyzed as claim 5. Claims 6, 12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudguiga et al. ( US 20220239463 A1 ) in view of Kellermeier et al. ( US 20090243925 A1 ) and further in view of Buck et al. ( US 20210243595 A1 ). Regarding claim 6, Boudguiga does not disclose the vehicle comprises a trusted platform module configured to provide a cryptographic access point application programming interface (API) for homomorphically encrypting the current location data of the vehicle. In the same field of endeavor, however, Buck discloses the vehicle comprises a trusted platform module configured to provide a cryptographic access point application programming interface (API) for homomorphically encrypting the current location data of the vehicle ( [0101]; [0139] ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method, as taught by Buck , in the system of Boudguiga because homomorphically encrypting data would allow information to be retrieved without decryption. Claim 12 is similarly analyzed as claim 6. Claim 18 is similarly analyzed as claim 6. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2 - 4 , 8 - 10 , 14 - 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Other Prior Art Cited The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to clock signal generation: Choncholas et al. (US 20250036802 A1) discloses Systems a nd Methods f or Localization Offloading Using Flexible Multi-Party Computation a nd Split Device Network Resources f or Preserving Privacy. Chu et al. (US 20180139054 A1) discloses System for Providing Local Computation Service on Client Device with Privac y. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1043 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Chieh M Fan can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3042 . 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. /ADOLF DSOUZA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632