DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/13/2025. has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 2/12/2024 has been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent Claims.
Claims 1, 5, 8, and 15 have been amended.
This Non-FINAL Office action is in response to the “Request for Continued Examination with Amendments and Remarks” received on 1/13/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 1/13/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and were not persuasive. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the Claims 1-20 rejections for under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claims and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached above in the Non-FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 5-8, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over NPL – Digital Matter (from the IDS “In Vehicle Monitoring Systems (IVMS), Accessed on 11/14/2023) [DM], in view of Lawrence et al (United States Patent Publication 2023/0204792), in view of Bookstaff (United States Patent Publication 2010/0268597), and in further view of Fasula et al (United States Patent Publication 2025/0232254).
With respect to Claim 1: While Digital Matter discloses “A computer-implemented method comprising” [DM, Page 1 (IVMS vehicle monitoring systems enable businesses to actively manage and monitor their fleet by recording data with high-precision GNSS tracking devices. IVMS vehicle tracking systems use hardware and software)];
“monitoring, by one or more computer processors, an internet connectivity of a computing device associated with a vehicle” [DM, Page 3 (When the device can no longer join the cellular network, it switches to the Iridium Network)];
“determining, by one or more computer processors, the internet connectivity has failed” [DM, Page 3 (When the device can no longer join the cellular network, it switches to the Iridium Network)];
“retrieving, by one or more computer processors, health data associated with the vehicle” [DM, Page 3 (Most IVMS system requirements call for real-time reporting on vehicle tracking and driver behaviors)];
“transforming, by one or more computer processors, the health data to a format of a global navigation satellite system that generates global positioning information” [DM, Page 3 (When the G120 is within coverage it uses the cellular modem, which is much more affordable than Iridium airtime. When the device can no longer join the cellular network, it switches to the Iridium Network. The use of concurrent GPS/GNSS, Cellular, and Iridium ensures assets are tracked anywhere in the world, even when the asset roams in and out of GPS coverage)];
“generating, by one or more computer processors, a message in the format associated with the global navigation satellite system that includes the transformed health data” [DM, Page 3 (When the device can no longer join the cellular network, it switches to the Iridium Network. The use of concurrent GPS/GNSS, Cellular, and Iridium ensures assets are tracked anywhere in the world, even when the asset roams in and out of GPS coverage. Iridium tracking ensures that fleet managers can remain actively engaged with lone and remote workers, ensuring safety of workers and assets with devices that are capable of sending signals of duress or rollover alerts no matter where they are.)];
“transmitting, by one or more computer processors, the message from the computing device associated with the vehicle to a satellite in the global navigation satellite system” [DM, Page 3 (When the device can no longer join the cellular network, it switches to the Iridium Network. The use of concurrent GPS/GNSS, Cellular, and Iridium ensures assets are tracked anywhere in the world, even when the asset roams in and out of GPS coverage. Iridium tracking ensures that fleet managers can remain actively engaged with lone and remote workers, ensuring safety of workers and assets with devices that are capable of sending signals of duress or rollover alerts no matter where they are.)];
“transmitting, by one or more computer processors, the message from the satellite in the global navigation satellite system to a service provider” [DM, Page 3 (When the device can no longer join the cellular network, it switches to the Iridium Network. The use of concurrent GPS/GNSS, Cellular, and Iridium ensures assets are tracked anywhere in the world, even when the asset roams in and out of GPS coverage. Iridium tracking ensures that fleet managers can remain actively engaged with lone and remote workers, ensuring safety of workers and assets with devices that are capable of sending signals of duress or rollover alerts no matter where they are.)];
DM does not specifically state bi-directional capability of the Iridium network, what types of data are sent over GPS satellites, or that that the Iridium Network is using Global Positioning information.
First, the Iridium Network, as stated in DM receives health data such as location, duress, and roll over alerts, and further states “the G120 not only offer real-time tracking systems for trucks, but includes a hybrid solution ·with an Iridium Edge® Module that provides out-of-coverage vehicle tracking using GPS and utilizing the Iridium Satellite Constellation that includes coverage all over the globe” [DM, Page 3].
Further, to demonstrate the features that are not specifically stated above, another prior art will be introduced to teach the not specifically stated features.
Lawrence, which is the Satelles company, that was works with the Iridium company and was purchased by Iridium teaches “a global navigation satellite system that generates global positioning information” [Lawrence, ¶ 0002-0003, 0019, and 0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lawrence into the invention of DM to not only include changing the ways data is sent from a vehicle from to satellite based on coverage as DM discloses but to also use low orbit (LEO) satillites for GPS communication with PNT data as taught by Lawrence with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Lawrence into DM to create a more robust system more reliably determine time or location [Lawrence, ¶ 0019]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements changing data channels based on connectivity and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Bookstaff, which is also a satellite system teaches “transforming, by one or more computer processors, the health data to a format of a global navigation satellite system that generates global positioning information” [Bookstaff, ¶ 0056-0061].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bookstaff into the invention of DM to not only include changing the ways data is sent from a vehicle from to satellite based on coverage as DM discloses but to transform the data into a form that GPS satellites understand as taught by Bookstaff with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Bookstaff into DM to create a more robust system that uses industry standards for communication protocols thus increasing ease of use. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements changing data channels based on connectivity and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Fasula, which a data system that uses nodes and when out of network uses global nodes teaches “monitoring, by one or more computer processors, a connectivity of a computing device associated with a vehicle” [Fasula, ¶ 0009, 0027, 0030 and 0032];
“determining, by one or more computer processors, the connectivity has failed” [Fasula, ¶ 0009, 0027, 0030 and 0032];
“transforming, by one or more computer processors, the health data to a format associated with a bidirectional capability of a global navigation satellite system” [Fasula, ¶ 0009, 0027, 0030 and 0032];
“generating, by one or more computer processors, a message in the format associated with the bidirectional capability of the global navigation satellite system that includes the transformed health data” [Fasula, ¶ 0009, 0027, 0030 and 0032];
“transmitting, by one or more computer processors, the message from the computing device associated to a satellite in the global navigation satellite system” [Fasula, ¶ 0009, 0027, 0030 and 0032;
“transmitting, by one or more computer processors, the message from the satellite in the global navigation satellite system to a service provider” [Fasula, ¶ 0009, 0027, 0030 and 0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Fasula into the invention of Esswie to not only include changing the ways data is sent from a vehicle from cellular to satellite based on connections or failed connections as Esswie discloses but to also send out health data when out of range to a global node, such a Irridium network with a system has that bidirectional capabilities as taught by Fasula with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Fasula into Esswie to create a more robust system that can improve asset management by providing reliable communications in harsh environments [Fasula, ¶ 0005]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements changing data channels based on connectivity and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 5: While DM discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the computer associated with the vehicle includes a global navigation satellite system device for the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)” [DM, Page 3 (The use of concurrent GPS/GNSS, Cellular, and Iridium ensures assets are tracked anywhere in the world, even when the asset roams in and out of GPS coverage)];
“and transforming the health data comprises transforming the health data to q message format” [DM, Page 2 (The 3-Axis accelerometer used in our devices enables accelerometer-based monitoring and alerts such as accident, harsh acceleration, harsh braking, and harsh cornering) and Page 3 (Iridium tracking ensures that fleet managers can remain actively engaged with lone and remote workers, ensuring safety of workers and assets w devices that are capable of sending signals of duress or rollover alerts no matter where they are)];
DM does not state what standard is being used to communicated with the GPS systems.
Bookstaff, which is also a satellite system teaches “transforming the health data comprises transforming the health data to comply with a National Marine Electronics Association (NMEA) standard message format” [Bookstaff, ¶ 0056-0061].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bookstaff into the invention of DM to not only include changing the ways data is sent from a vehicle from to satellite based on coverage as DM discloses but to transform the data into a form that GPS satellites understand as taught by Bookstaff with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Bookstaff into DM to create a more robust system that uses industry standards for communication protocols thus increasing ease of use. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements changing data channels based on connectivity and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 6: DM discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the health data is generated by one or more telematic sensors” [DM, Page 2 (The 3-Axis accelerometer used in our devices enables accelerometer-based monitoring and alerts such as accident, harsh acceleration, harsh braking, and harsh cornering) and Page 3 (Iridium tracking ensures that fleet managers can remain actively engaged with lone and remote workers, ensuring safety of workers and assets w devices that are capable of sending signals of duress or rollover alerts no matter where they are)].
With respect to Claim 7: While DM discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein transforming the health data includes using at least one of a data transformation map and a custom mapping component.” [DM, Page 2 (The 3-Axis accelerometer used in our devices enables accelerometer-based monitoring and alerts such as accident, harsh acceleration, harsh braking, and harsh cornering) and Page 3 (Iridium tracking ensures that fleet managers can remain actively engaged with lone and remote workers, ensuring safety of workers and assets w devices that are capable of sending signals of duress or rollover alerts no matter where they are)];
DM does not specifically state how the data is transformed from sensor to being sent as alerts or reports.
Bookstaff, which is also a satellite system teaches “transforming, by one or more computer processors, the health data to a format of a global navigation satellite system that generates global positioning information” [Bookstaff, ¶ 0056-0061].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bookstaff into the invention of DM to not only include changing the ways data is sent from a vehicle from to satellite based on coverage as DM discloses but to transform the data into a form that GPS satellites understand as taught by Bookstaff with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Bookstaff into DM to create a more robust system that uses industry standards for communication protocols thus increasing ease of use. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements changing data channels based on connectivity and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claims 8 and 13-14: all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in Claims 1 and 5-7. The program instructions taught/disclosed in Claims 8 and 13-14 can clearly perform as the method of Claims 1 and 5-7. Therefore Claims 8 and 13-14 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 15 and 20: all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in Claims 1 and 5-7. The program instructions taught/disclosed in Claims 15 and 20 can clearly perform as the method of Claims 1 and 5-7. Therefore Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2-4, 9-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over NPL – Digital Matter (from the IDS “In Vehicle Monitoring Systems (IVMS), Accessed on 11/14/2023) [DM], in view of Lawrence et al (United States Patent Publication 2023/0204792), in view of Bookstaff (United States Patent Publication 2010/0268597), in view of Fasula et al (United States Patent Publication 2025/0232254) and in further view of Jeong et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0347235).
With respect to Claim 2-4: While DM discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by one or more computer processors, information associated with the service provider” [DM, Page 3 (Iridium tracking ensures that fleet managers can remain actively engaged with lone and remote workers, ensuring safety of workers and assets with devices that are capable of sending signals of duress or rollover alerts no matter where they are)];
“and adding, by one or more computer processors, the information to the message” [DM, Page 3 (Iridium tracking ensures that fleet managers can remain actively engaged with lone and remote workers, ensuring safety of workers and assets with devices that are capable of sending signals of duress or rollover alerts no matter where they are)];
DM does not specifically state what encrypting the data.
Jeong, which is also a system that provides a service, teaches “comprising: determining, by one or more computer processors, processors, information associated with the service provider” [Jeong, ¶ ];
“and adding, by one or more computer processors, the information to the message” [Jeong, ¶ 0022];
“encrypting, by one or more computer processors, the transformed data” [Jeong, ¶ 0041];
“wherein encrypting the data includes using a public key associated with the service provider” [Jeong, ¶ 0014 and 0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Jeong into the invention of DM to not only include changing the ways data is sent from a vehicle from cellular to satellite based on connections or failed connections as DM discloses but to also encrypt data and assign keys for the encryption as taught by Jeong with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Jeong into DM to “so that the security and safety of the service execution code may be guaranteed” [Jeong, ¶ 0055]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements changing data channels based on connectivity and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claims 9-12: all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in Claims 2-4. The program instructions taught/disclosed in Claims 9-12 can clearly perform as the method of Claims 2-4. Therefore Claims 9-12 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 16-19: all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in Claims 2-4. The program instructions taught/disclosed in Claims 16-19 can clearly perform as the method of Claims 2-4. Therefore Claims 16-19are rejected under the same rationale.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c