DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment dated November 11, 2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are canceled.
Claims 21-49 are newly added.
Therefore, claims 21-49 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 23, 26-27, 29, 34, 36, 38-39, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zafiroglu et al. (US PG Pub #2014/0180773).
As to claim 21, Zafiroglu teaches a system for determining occupancy of a vehicle (Paragraph [0017] teaches a system to determine a number of vehicle occupants), comprising:
a communication interface (Paragraphs [0040]-[0042] teach interfaces; Figure 2 shows a shared communication path between components of the system) configured to:
receive first occupancy information from a sensor associated with the vehicle (Paragraph [0041] teaches receiving sensor data; Paragraph [0017] teaches sensors provided in the vehicle that capture data indicative of a number of vehicle occupants; Paragraph [0018] teaches receiving the sensor data by at least one processor); and
receive second occupancy information comprising occupant-provided occupancy information (Paragraph [0077] teaches input received from an occupant via an interface indicating the accuracy of the vehicle occupancy information); and
a processor configured to determine a vehicle occupancy based on the first occupancy information and second occupancy information (Paragraph [0041] teaches one or more dedicated processors that analyze received data to generate vehicle occupancy information; Paragraphs [0073] and [0077] teach determining a number of vehicle occupants based on both sensor occupancy information and occupant input occupancy information).
As to claim 23, depending from the system of claim 21, Zafiroglu teaches wherein the communication interface is further configured to wirelessly transmit the determined vehicle occupancy to a tolling entity to facilitate a tolling transaction by the tolling entity (Paragraph [0021] teaches transmitting the vehicle occupancy information to a tolling infrastructure to determine a toll amount based on the information; Paragraph [0023] teaches various means by which wireless communication with the tolling infrastructure takes place).
As to claim 26, depending from the system of claim 21, Zafiroglu teaches wherein the sensor comprises: a pressure sensor associated with a seat of the vehicle and configured to detect whether the seat is occupied, or an image sensor configured to capture an image of an interior of the vehicle (Paragraph [0017] teaches pressure sensors embedded in seats of a vehicle or imaging devices to detect occupancy).
As to claim 27, depending from the system of claim 21, Zafiroglu teaches wherein the occupant-provided occupancy information is occupancy data manually entered by an occupant of the vehicle (Paragraph [0077] teaches receiving input from a vehicle occupant via an interface).
As to claim 29, Zafiroglu teaches a method for determining occupancy of a vehicle (Paragraph [0054] teaches a method for determining a number of vehicle occupants), comprising:
receiving, by a first computing device and from a sensor of the vehicle, first occupancy information (Paragraph [0041] teaches receiving sensor data; Paragraph [0017] teaches sensors provided in the vehicle that capture data indicative of a number of vehicle occupants; Paragraph [0018] teaches receiving the sensor data by at least one processor);
receiving, by the first computing device, second occupancy information, wherein the second occupancy information is occupant-provided occupancy data (Paragraph [0077] teaches input received from an occupant via an interface indicating the accuracy of the vehicle occupancy information); and
determining, by the first computing device, a vehicle occupancy based on the first occupancy information and second occupancy information (Paragraph [0041] teaches one or more dedicated processors that analyze received data to generate vehicle occupancy information; Paragraphs [0073] and [0077] teach determining a number of vehicle occupants based on both sensor occupancy information and occupant input occupancy information).
As to claim 34, depending from the method of claim 29, Zafiroglu teaches the method further comprising wirelessly transmitting, by the first computing device, the determined vehicle occupancy to a tolling entity to facilitate a tolling transaction by the tolling entity (Paragraph [0021] teaches transmitting the vehicle occupancy information to a tolling infrastructure to determine a toll amount based on the information; Paragraph [0023] teaches various means by which wireless communication with the tolling infrastructure takes place).
As to claim 36, depending from the method of claim 29, Zafiroglu teaches the method further comprising providing, by the first computing device, the determined vehicle occupancy to an occupant of the vehicle (Paragraph [0076] teaches presenting via an interface, or display, the vehicle occupancy information indicative of a current number of vehicle occupants).
As to claim 38, depending from the method of claim 29, Zafiroglu teaches wherein the sensor comprises: a pressure sensor associated with a seat of the vehicle and configured to detect whether the seat is occupied, or an image sensor configured to capture an image of an interior of the vehicle (Paragraph [0017] teaches pressure sensors embedded in seats of a vehicle or imaging devices to detect occupancy).
As to claim 39, depending from the method of claim 29, Zafiroglu teaches wherein the occupant-provided occupancy data is occupancy data manually entered by an occupant of the vehicle (Paragraph [0077] teaches receiving input from a vehicle occupant via an interface).
As to claim 42, Zafiroglu teaches at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon, that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform (Paragraph [0080] teaches a computer readable storage medium storing computer program instructions that may be loaded onto a processor for execution; Paragraph [0081] teaches types of computer readable storage mediums included non-transitory types) the method of claim 29 (as seen in the citations made with respect to claim 29 above).
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 22, 25, 33, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zafiroglu et al. (US PG Pub #2014/0180773) as applied to claims 21 and 29 above, and further in view of Bissett (US PG Pub #2010/0021015).
As to claim 22, depending from the system of claim 21, Zafiroglu does not explicitly teach wherein determining the vehicle occupancy comprises comparing the first occupancy information and the second occupancy information.
In the field of vehicle occupancy data processing, Bissett teaches wherein determining the vehicle occupancy comprises comparing the first occupancy information and the second occupancy information (Paragraphs [0025]-[0026] and Paragraphs [0052]-[0053] teach comparing occupancy count information from image data and occupancy count information entered by the occupant). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zafiroglu with the count comparison of Bissett because automating the occupancy verification of Zafiroglu yields the predictable result of increased efficiency and reliability of the system by only relying on the driver to input data instead of displaying sensed occupancy data and waiting for a user to confirm the accuracy of the sensed data.
As to claim 25, depending from the system of claim 21, Zafiroglu does not explicitly teach wherein determining the vehicle occupancy comprises validating the second occupancy information based on the first occupancy information.
In the field of vehicle occupancy data processing, Bissett teaches wherein determining the vehicle occupancy comprises validating the second occupancy information based on the first occupancy information (Paragraphs [0025]-[0026] and Paragraphs [0052]-[0053] teach comparing occupancy count information from image data and occupancy count information entered by the occupant such that comparing data to determine if they are equal validates the data in each direction, i.e. data A validates data B and data B validates data A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zafiroglu with the count comparison of Bissett such that the second occupancy information is validated based on the first occupancy information because comparing data to determine if two inputs are equal yields the predictable result of increasing the reliability of processing based on data by ensuring the data is accurate or verified.
As to claim 33, depending from the method of claim 29, Zafiroglu does not explicitly teach wherein determining the vehicle occupancy comprises comparing the first occupancy information and the second occupancy information.
In the field of vehicle occupancy data processing, Bissett teaches wherein determining the vehicle occupancy comprises comparing the first occupancy information and the second occupancy information (Paragraphs [0025]-[0026] and Paragraphs [0052]-[0053] teach comparing occupancy count information from image data and occupancy count information entered by the occupant). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zafiroglu with the count comparison of Bissett because automating the occupancy verification of Zafiroglu yields the predictable result of increased efficiency and reliability of the system by only relying on the driver to input data instead of displaying sensed occupancy data and waiting for a user to confirm the accuracy of the sensed data.
As to claim 37, depending from the method of claim 29, Zafiroglu does not explicitly teach wherein determining the vehicle occupancy comprises validating the second occupancy information based on the first occupancy information.
In the field of vehicle occupancy data processing, Bissett teaches wherein determining the vehicle occupancy comprises validating the second occupancy information based on the first occupancy information (Paragraphs [0025]-[0026] and Paragraphs [0052]-[0053] teach comparing occupancy count information from image data and occupancy count information entered by the occupant such that comparing data to determine if they are equal validates the data in each direction, i.e. data A validates data B and data B validates data A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zafiroglu with the count comparison of Bissett such that the second occupancy information is validated based on the first occupancy information because comparing data to determine if two inputs are equal yields the predictable result of increasing the reliability of processing based on data by ensuring the data is accurate or verified.
Claims 24 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zafiroglu et al. (US PG Pub #2014/0180773) as applied to claims 23 and 34 above, and further in view of Sol (US PG Pub #2010/0032479).
As to claim 24, depending from the system of claim 23, Zafiroglu does not explicitly teach wherein the communication interface is further configured to wirelessly receive toll information associated with the tolling transaction from the tolling entity.
In the field of toll settlement systems, Sol teaches wherein the communication interface is further configured to wirelessly receive toll information associated with the tolling transaction from the tolling entity (Paragraphs [0049]-[0050] teach an electronic toll settlement device of a vehicle including a wireless communication means and a wireless local communications module; Paragraphs [0106] and [0127] teach a tollgate settlement server delivering a result indirectly to the electronic toll settlement device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zafiroglu with the communication of Sol because this allows the vehicle to display the result of the toll processing to the driver (Paragraphs [0107] and [0128]).
As to claim 35, depending from the method of claim 34, Zafiroglu does not explicitly teach the method further comprising wirelessly receiving, by the first computing device and from the tolling entity, toll information associated with the tolling transaction.
In the field of toll settlement systems, Sol teaches the method further comprising wirelessly receiving, by the first computing device and from the tolling entity, toll information associated with the tolling transaction (Paragraphs [0049]-[0050] teach an electronic toll settlement device of a vehicle including a wireless communication means and a wireless local communications module; Paragraphs [0106] and [0127] teach a tollgate settlement server delivering a result indirectly to the electronic toll settlement device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zafiroglu with the communication of Sol because this allows the vehicle to display the result of the toll processing to the driver (Paragraphs [0107] and [0128]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zafiroglu et al. (US PG Pub #2014/0180773) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Raffa et al (Raffa; US PG Pub #2014/0229568).
As to claim 28, depending from the system of claim 21, Zafiroglu does not explicitly teach wherein the communication interface comprises a wireless transceiver, the first occupancy information and/or the second occupancy information being wirelessly received by the communication interface.
In the field of vehicle communication systems, Raffa teaches wherein the communication interface comprises a wireless transceiver, the first occupancy information and/or the second occupancy information being wirelessly received by the communication interface (Paragraph [0014] teaches probes, including sensors and cameras, to detect the presence of an occupant of a vehicle that communicate wirelessly with an in-vehicle infotainment system; Figures 1, 2, and 5 show IVI system 120 communicating via links 218 and including communication platform 228 comprising radio unit 544 and exchange component 548; Paragraph [0029] teaches that the radio unit 544 includes one or more antennas and a communication processing unit). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zafiroglu with the communication of Raffa because Raffa recognizes the use of wired, wireless, or any combination thereof (Paragraph [0014]) such that selecting any one known communication type would be a simple substitution for the other communication type that yields the expected result of conveying data from one device to another.
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zafiroglu et al. (US PG Pub #2014/0180773) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Inman et al. (Inman; US PG Pub #2004/0122574).
As to claim 30, depending from the method of claim 29, Zafiroglu teaches wherein the second occupancy information is received from a second device (Paragraph [0077] teaches receiving input from an occupant via an interface; Paragraph [0040] teaches an I/O interface receiving data from devices), but does not explicitly teach a second computing device.
In the field of vehicle sensing systems, Inman teaches receiving data from a second computing device (Paragraph [0013] teaches receiving driver data via a portable device such as a portable digital assistant or an offboard source via a wireless link, like a cellular phone link). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zafiroglu with the input of Inman because Inman teaches receiving driver data from various sources, including onboard sensors or querying the driver for input via voice recognition, a dedicated input device, existing driving controls within the vehicle, a portable device, or an offboard source (Paragraph [0013]) such that receiving data from any of these types of sources yields the predictable result of receiving data from appropriate sources in order to increase the data received by the system for increased reliability in making determinations based on the processed data.
As to claim 31, depending from the method of claim 30, Zafiroglu teaches wherein the occupant-provided occupancy data is manually entered by an occupant of the vehicle using the second device (Paragraph [0077] teaches using input received from the vehicle occupant via an interface), but does not explicitly teach the second computing device.
In the field of vehicle sensing systems, Inman teaches the second computing device (Paragraph [0013] teaches receiving driver data via a portable device such as a portable digital assistant or an offboard source via a wireless link, like a cellular phone link). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zafiroglu with the input of Inman because Inman teaches receiving driver data from various sources, including onboard sensors or querying the driver for input via voice recognition, a dedicated input device, existing driving controls within the vehicle, a portable device, or an offboard source (Paragraph [0013]) such that receiving data from any of these types of sources yields the predictable result of receiving data from appropriate sources in order to increase the data received by the system for increased reliability in making determinations based on the processed data.
As to claim 32, depending from the method of claim 30, Zafiroglu does not explicitly teach wherein the second computing device is configured to receive an occupancy status entered by an occupant of the vehicle as the second occupancy information.
In the field of vehicle sensing systems, Inman teaches wherein the second computing device is configured to receive an occupancy status entered by an occupant of the vehicle as the second occupancy information (Paragraph [0013] teaches receiving driver data via a portable device such as a portable digital assistant or an offboard source via a wireless link, like a cellular phone link). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zafiroglu with the input of Inman because Inman teaches receiving driver data from various sources, including onboard sensors or querying the driver for input via voice recognition, a dedicated input device, existing driving controls within the vehicle, a portable device, or an offboard source (Paragraph [0013]) such that receiving data from any of these types of sources yields the predictable result of receiving data from appropriate sources in order to increase the data received by the system for increased reliability in making determinations based on the processed data.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zafiroglu et al. (US PG Pub #2014/0180773) in view of Inman et al. (Inman; US PG Pub #2004/0122574) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Raffa et al (Raffa; US PG Pub #2014/0229568).
As to claim 40, depending from the method of claim 30, Zafiroglu does not explicitly teach wherein the first occupancy information and the second occupancy information are wirelessly received, by the first computing device, from the sensor and the second computing device, respectively.
In the field of vehicle sensing systems, Inman teaches receiving data wirelessly from a second computing device (Paragraph [0013] teaches receiving driver data via a portable device such as a portable digital assistant or an offboard source via a wireless link, like a cellular phone link). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zafiroglu with the input of Inman because Inman teaches receiving driver data from various sources, including onboard sensors or querying the driver for input via voice recognition, a dedicated input device, existing driving controls within the vehicle, a portable device, or an offboard source (Paragraph [0013]) such that receiving data from any of these types of sources yields the predictable result of receiving data from appropriate sources in order to increase the data received by the system for increased reliability in making determinations based on the processed data. However, Zafiroglu in view of Inman does not render obvious wherein the first occupancy information is wirelessly received by the first computing device from the sensor.
In the field of vehicle communication systems, Raffa teaches wherein the first occupancy information is wirelessly received by the first computing device from the sensor (Paragraph [0014] teaches probes, including sensors and cameras, to detect the presence of an occupant of a vehicle that communicate wirelessly with an in-vehicle infotainment system; Figures 1, 2, and 5 show IVI system 120 communicating via links 218 and including communication platform 228 comprising radio unit 544 and exchange component 548; Paragraph [0029] teaches that the radio unit 544 includes one or more antennas and a communication processing unit). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zafiroglu with the communication of Raffa because Raffa recognizes the use of wired, wireless, or any combination thereof (Paragraph [0014]) such that selecting any one known communication type would be a simple substitution for the other communication type that yields the expected result of conveying data from one device to another.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zafiroglu et al. (US PG Pub #2014/0180773) in view of Inman et al. (Inman; US PG Pub #2004/0122574) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Goldmann et al (Goldmann; US PG Pub #2011/0090095).
As to claim 41, depending from the method of claim 30, Zafiroglu does not explicitly teach the method further comprising receiving, by the second computing device, toll-related information entered by an occupant of the vehicle, wherein the second computing device is configured to provide the toll-related information to the first computing device.
As seen with respect to claim 30 above, the combination of Zafiroglu renders obvious receiving, by the second computing device, information entered by an occupant of the vehicle, wherein the second computing device is configured to provide the information to the first computing device. However, Zafiroglu in view of Inman does not render obvious receiving toll-related information entered by an occupant.
In the field of toll systems, Goldmann teaches receiving toll-related information entered by an occupant (Paragraph [0044] teaches an input screen for the user to provide toll charging parameters including the number of passengers and the vehicle class, noise or air pollution class, horsepower rating, or number of wheels or axles). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zafiroglu in view of Inman with the teaching of Goldmann such that the user provides occupancy data and toll related data via the second computing device because this yields the predictable result of allowing the user to input multiple pieces of data via a single interface that is convenient to them for enhanced safety and efficiency in computing appropriate tolls.
Claim 43-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zafiroglu et al. (US PG Pub #2014/0180773) in view of Bissett (US PG Pub #2010/0021015).
As to claim 43, Zafiroglu teaches method for determining occupancy of a vehicle (Paragraph [0054] teaches a method for determining a number of vehicle occupants), comprising:
determining, using a sensor of the vehicle, first occupancy information (Paragraph [0041] teaches receiving sensor data; Paragraph [0017] teaches sensors provided in the vehicle that capture data indicative of a number of vehicle occupants; Paragraph [0018] teaches receiving the sensor data by at least one processor);
transmitting, to a tolling entity, the first occupancy information (Paragraphs [0021] and [0023] teach transmitting vehicle occupancy information to a tolling infrastructure);
determining, based on an input from an occupant of the vehicle, second occupancy information (Paragraph [0077] teaches input received from an occupant via an interface indicating the accuracy of the vehicle occupancy information); and
the tolling entity to perform a tolling transaction based on the first and the second occupancy information (Paragraph [0077] teaches input received from an occupant via an interface indicating the accuracy of the vehicle occupancy information; Paragraphs [0021] and [0023] teach transmitting vehicle occupancy information to a tolling infrastructure to determine a toll amount including incentives based on the information).
Zafiroglu does not explicitly teach transmitting, to the tolling entity, the second occupancy information.
In the field of vehicle occupancy data processing, Bissett teaches transmitting, to the tolling entity, the second occupancy information (Paragraphs [0038]-[0039] and [0048] teach sending gathered information to an analysis station for determination of whether occupant counts from multiple sources correspond). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zafiroglu with the centralized count comparison of Bissett because processing data at a central location yields the predictable result of reducing the processing required at the local devices for efficient processing.
As to claim 44, depending from the method of claim 43, Zafiroglu teaches wherein the determination and transmission of the first occupancy information is performed by a first computing device (Paragraphs [0021] and [0023] teach transmitting vehicle occupancy information to a tolling infrastructure from the in-vehicle infotainment system of the vehicle), and the determination of the second occupancy information is performed by a second device (Paragraph [0077] teaches receiving input from an occupant via an interface; Paragraph [0040] teaches an I/O interface receiving data from devices), but does not explicitly teach transmission from the a second computing device.
In the field of vehicle occupancy data processing, Bissett teaches transmission from a second computing device (Paragraphs [0038]-[0039] and [0048] teach sending gathered information from a portable documentation device 16 to an analysis station). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zafiroglu with the portable device transmission of Bissett because transmitting from the same device that senses the data yields the predictable result of efficient processing by permitting sensed data to be sent without delay.
As to claim 45, depending from the method of claim 43, Zafiroglu teaches wherein the determination and transmission of the first occupancy information and the determination of the second occupancy information are performed by a computing device associated with the vehicle (Paragraphs [0021] and [0023] teach transmitting vehicle occupancy information to a tolling infrastructure from the in-vehicle infotainment system of the vehicle; Paragraph [0077] teaches the IVI system receiving input from the occupant). However, Zafiroglu does not explicitly teach transmission of the second occupancy information by a computing device associated with the vehicle.
In the field of vehicle occupancy data processing, Bissett teaches transmission of the first and second occupancy information by the same computing device (Paragraphs [0038]-[0039] and [0048] teach sending gathered information from portable documentation device 16 to an analysis station). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zafiroglu with the transmission of data from a single source and centralized count comparison of Bissett because processing data at a central location yields the predictable result of reducing the processing required at the local devices for efficient processing.
As to claim 46, depending from the method of claim 43, Zafiroglu does not explicitly teach wherein the first occupancy information and the second occupancy information are transmitted in a same transmission.
In the field of vehicle occupancy data processing, Bissett teaches wherein the first occupancy information and the second occupancy information are transmitted in a same transmission (Figure 5, Item 128 shows sending input information and image information; Paragraph [0058]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zafiroglu with the transmission of Bissett so that the first and second occupancy data is transmitted in the same transmission because this yields the predictable result of conveying relevant data at the same time for proper processing without needing to store and recall the information at the tolling entity to reduce the complexity of the central processing.
As to claim 47, depending from the method of claim 43, Zafiroglu teaches the method further comprising determining a vehicle occupancy based on the first occupancy information and second occupancy information (Paragraphs [0073] and [0077] teach determining a number of vehicle occupants based on both sensor occupancy information and occupant input occupancy information).
As to claim 48, depending from the method of claim 47, Zafiroglu does not explicitly teach the method further comprising providing the determined vehicle occupancy to the occupant of the vehicle.
However, Zafiroglu teaches presenting via an interface, or display, the vehicle occupancy information indicative of a current number of vehicle occupants (Paragraph [0076]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zafiroglu to display the determined occupancy information, based on the first and second data, because this yields the predictable result of increasing the reliability in the system by informing the driver that the system is processing the correct data based on the input of the user and the sensed data of the vehicle.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zafiroglu et al. (US PG Pub #2014/0180773) in view of Bissett (US PG Pub #2010/0021015) as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Sol (US PG Pub #2010/0032479).
As to claim 49, depending from the method of claim 43, Zafiroglu does not explicitly teach the method further comprising receiving, from the tolling entity, toll information associated with the tolling transaction.
In the field of toll settlement systems, Sol teaches the method further comprising receiving, from the tolling entity, toll information associated with the tolling transaction (Paragraphs [0049]-[0050] teach an electronic toll settlement device of a vehicle including a wireless communication means and a wireless local communications module; Paragraphs [0106] and [0127] teach a tollgate settlement server delivering a result indirectly to the electronic toll settlement device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zafiroglu with the communication of Sol because this allows the vehicle to display the result of the toll processing to the driver (Paragraphs [0107] and [0128]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-49 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN W SHERWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-8:00, 9:00-3:00 and 4:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached at 571.270.1210. 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.
/RYAN W SHERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688