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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClellan et al. (Pub # US 2008/0319602 A1), and further in view of Hart (US Patent 8,463,488 B1).
Consider claim 1, McClellan et al. teaches a method performed by a processor of a transport, the method comprising: limiting, operational characteristic of the transport based on an operating parameter indicating an unsafe operation of the transport [0040].
McClellan et al. does not teach changing the operating parameter is changed to a previous operating parameter in response to the transport complying with the operating parameter for a period of time.
In the same filed of endeavor, Hart teaches changing the operating parameter is changed to a previous operating parameter in response to the transport complying with the operating parameter for a period of time (Column 7 lines 34-52) for the benefit of reducing the operation risk.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include changing the operating parameter is changed to a previous operating parameter in response to the transport complying with the operating parameter for a period of time as shown in Hart, in McClellan et al. method for the benefit of reducing the operation risk.
Consider claim 2, McClellan et al. clearly shows and disclose the method, wherein the operating parameter comprises one or more of: information identifying a type of unsafe operation, or information identifying a level of unsafe operation [0047].
Consider claim 3, McClellan et al. teaches the similar invention.
McClellan et al. does not teach wherein the previous operating parameter is relaxed in comparison to the operating parameter.
In the same field of endeavor, Hart teaches wherein the previous operating parameter is relaxed in comparison to the operating parameter (Column 4 lines 40-52) for the benefit of replace previous vehicle operation parameter with new operating parameter when unsafe operation is detected.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the previous operating parameter is relaxed in comparison to the operating parameter as shown in Hart, in McClellan et al. method for the benefit of replace previous vehicle operation parameter with new operating parameter when unsafe operation is detected.
Consider claim 4, McClellan et al. clearly shows and disclose the method, wherein the limiting of the operational characteristic comprises: limiting the operational characteristic by an amount based on the one or more of the types of unsafe operation or the level of unsafe operation [0036-0037].
Consider claim 5, McClellan et al. clearly shows and disclose the method, wherein the operating parameter comprises: information specifying how to correct the unsafe operation [0040].
Consider claim 6, McClellan et al. clearly shows and disclose the method, wherein the operating parameter one or more of: data identifying an issue with the transport, data identifying erratic (aggressive) driving associated with the transport, or data identifying a weather condition associated with the transport [0023-0024].
Consider claim 7, McClellan et al. clearly shows and disclose the method, wherein the operating parameter comprises: identifying a condition of a road associated with the transport [0051].
Consider claim 8, McClellan et al. teaches a transport, comprising: a processor that executes one or more instructions in a memory to configure the processor to: limit an operational characteristic of the transport based on an operating parameter indicating an unsafe operation of the transport [0040].
McClellan et al. does not teach changing the operating parameter is changed to a previous operating parameter in response to the transport complying with the operating parameter for a period of time.
In the same filed of endeavor, Hart teaches changing the operating parameter is changed to a previous operating parameter in response to the transport complying with the operating parameter for a period of time (Column 7 lines 34-52) for the benefit of reducing the operation risk.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include changing the operating parameter is changed to a previous operating parameter in response to the transport complying with the operating parameter for a period of time as shown in Hart, in McClellan et al. device for the benefit of reducing the operation risk.
Consider claim 9, McClellan et al. clearly shows and disclose the transport, wherein the operating parameter comprises one or more of: information identifying a type of unsafe operation, or information identifying a level of unsafe operation [0047].
Consider claim 10, McClellan et al. teaches the similar invention.
McClellan et al. does not teach wherein the previous operating parameter is relaxed in comparison to the operating parameter.
In the same field of endeavor, Hart teaches wherein the previous operating parameter is relaxed in comparison to the operating parameter (Column 4 lines 40-52) for the benefit of replace previous vehicle operation parameter with new operating parameter when unsafe operation is detected.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the previous operating parameter is relaxed in comparison to the operating parameter as shown in Hart, in McClellan et al. device for the benefit of replace previous vehicle operation parameter with new operating parameter when unsafe operation is detected.
Consider claim 11, McClellan et al. clearly shows and disclose the transport, wherein the limiting of the operational characteristic comprises: limiting the operational characteristic by an amount based on the one or more of the types of unsafe operation or the level of unsafe operation [0036-0037].
Consider claim 12, McClellan et al. clearly shows and disclose the transport, wherein the operating parameter comprises: information specifying how to correct the unsafe operation [0040].
Consider claim 13, McClellan et al. clearly shows and disclose the transport, wherein the operating parameter one or more of: data identifying an issue with the transport, data identifying erratic (aggressive) driving associated with the transport, or data identifying a weather condition associated with the transport [0023-0024].
Consider claim 15, McClellan et al. teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more instructions that, when executed by a processor of a transport, cause the processor to perform: limiting, an operational characteristic of the transport based on an operating parameter indicating an unsafe operation of the transport [0040].
McCellan et al. does not teach changing wherein the operating parameter to a previous operating parameter in response to an-operation-of the transport complying with the operating parameter for a period of time.
In the same filed of endeavor, Hart teaches changing wherein the operating parameter to a previous operating parameter in response to an-operation-of the transport complying with the operating parameter for a period of time (Column 7 lines 34-52) for the benefit of reducing the operation risk.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include changing wherein the operating parameter to a previous operating parameter in response to an-operation-of the transport complying with the operating parameter for a period of time as shown in Hart, in McClellan et al. device for the benefit of reducing the operation risk.
Consider claim 16, McClellan et al. clearly shows and disclose the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operating parameter comprises one or more of: information identifying a type of unsafe operation, or information identifying a level of unsafe operation [0047].
Consider claim 17, McClellan et al. teaches similar invention.
McClellan et al. does not teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the previous operating parameter is relaxed in comparison to the operating parameter.
McClellan et al. does not teach wherein the previous operating parameter is relaxed in comparison to the operating parameter.
In the same field of endeavor, Hart wherein the previous operating parameter is relaxed in comparison to the operating parameter (Column 4 lines 40-52) for the benefit of replace previous vehicle operation parameter with new operating parameter when unsafe operation is detected.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the previous operating parameter is relaxed in comparison to the operating parameter as shown in Hart, in McClellan et al. device for the benefit of replace previous vehicle operation parameter with new operating parameter when unsafe operation is detected.
Consider claim 18, McClellan et al. clearly shows and disclose the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the limiting of the operational characteristic comprises: limiting the operational characteristic by an amount based on the one or more of the identified-type of unsafe operation or the level of unsafe operation [0036-0037].
Consider claim 19, McClellan et al. clearly shows and disclose the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the operating parameter comprises: one or more of: data identifying an issue with the transport, data identifying erratic (aggressive) driving associated with the transport, or data identifying a weather condition associated with the transport [.0023-0024].
Consider claim 20, McClellan et al. clearly shows and disclose the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the operating parameter comprises: data identifying a condition of a road associated with the transport [0051].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClellan et al. (Pub # US 2008/0319602 A1) in view of Hart (US Patent 8,463,488 B1) as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Georgis et al. (Pub # US 2010/0004838 A1).
Consider claim 14, McClellan et al. teaches the similar invention.
McClellan et al. and Hart combined reference does not teach wherein the operating parameter comprises: identifying a weather condition associated with the transport.
In the same field of endeavor, Georgis et al. teaches wherein the operating parameter comprises: identifying a weather condition associated with the transport [0018] for the benefit of provides warning to the operator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the operating parameter comprises: identifying a weather condition associated with the transport as shown in Geoegis, et al., in McClellan et al. and Hart combined device for the benefit of provides warning to the operator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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
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 JACK K WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/JACK K WANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686