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 .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on January 23, 2026 and January 30, 2026. Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s arguments have been considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Higuchi does not disclose analyzing in-vehicle network messages (Applicant’s Response, pg. 6), the examiner respectfully disagrees. In paragraph 0037, Higuchi discloses the sensor data reception module receiving sensor data from one or more connected vehicles and paragraph 0034, Higuchi discloses the sensor data reception module being located on the vehicle. The sensor data reception module would receive the sensor data of the vehicle and then use this sensor data to determine a safety score with the parking safety determination module, as disclosed in paragraph 0053.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Higuchi does not describe vehicle network messages that cause activation of a vehicle horn, vehicle lock, or vehicle lamp (Applicant’s Response, pg. 7), the examiner agrees. This limitation is taught in Penilla, Col. 14, lines 51-56, which discloses sensors that can produce actions, such as sounding a horn and turning on lights. These sensors would then be analyzed by Higuchi to determine a safety score.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Penilla does not describe analyzing in-vehicle network messages (Applicant’s Response, pg. 7), the examiner agrees. Penilla, Col. 14, lines 51-56, discloses sensors that can produce actions, such as sounding a horn and turning on lights. Higuchi, paragraph 0037, discloses the sensor data reception module receiving sensor data from one or more connected vehicles and paragraph 0034 discloses the sensor data reception module being located on the vehicle. The sensor data reception module would receive the sensor data of the vehicle and then use this sensor data to determine a safety score with the parking safety determination module, as disclosed in paragraph 0053.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Penilla does not describe treating vehicle network messages as the basis for generating reason information used to determine a safe parking location (Applicant’s Response, pg. 7), the examiner agrees. This limitation is taught in Higuchi, paragraph 0037, which discloses the sensor data reception module receiving sensor data from one or more connected vehicles and paragraph 0034 discloses the sensor data reception module being located on the vehicle. The sensor data reception module would receive the sensor data of the vehicle and then use this sensor data to determine a safety score with the parking safety determination module, as disclosed in paragraph 0053. Therefore, Higuchi, as modified, would use the messages from the sensors of Penilla, in addition to its own sensors, to determine a safe parking location.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Osborne does not teach analyzing oxygen sensor data for purposes of generating reason information associated with a parking location (Applicant’s Response, pg. 8), the examiner agrees. Osborne teaches a missing catalytic converter would trigger an oxygen sensor in the exhaust resulting a warning light showing up on the dashboard (An engine warning light shows up on your dashboard). Higuchi, paragraph 0037, teaches the sensor data reception module receiving sensor data from one or more connected vehicles and paragraph 0034 teaches the sensor data reception module being located on the vehicle. The sensor data reception module would receive the sensor data of the vehicle and then use this sensor data to determine a safety score with the parking safety determination module, as disclosed in paragraph 0053. Therefore, Higuchi, as modified, would use the oxygen sensor data of Osborne, in addition to its own sensors, to determine a safe parking location.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Osborne does not teach integrating oxygen sensor data into a parking recommendation system (Applicant’s Response, pg. 8), the examiner agrees. Osborne, an engine warning light shows up on your dashboard, teaches a missing catalytic converter would trigger an oxygen sensor in the exhaust resulting a warning light showing up on the dashboard. Higuchi, paragraph 0037, teaches the sensor data reception module receiving sensor data from one or more connected vehicles and paragraph 0034 teaches the sensor data reception module being located on the vehicle. The sensor data reception module would receive the sensor data of the vehicle and then use this sensor data to determine a safety score with the parking safety determination module, as disclosed in paragraph 0053. Therefore, Higuchi, as modified, would use the oxygen sensor data of Osborne, in addition to its own sensors, to determine a safe parking location.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Higuchi, Penilla, and Osborne do not describe using in-vehicle network activity, including security-module-generated messages and oxygen sensor data, as inputs for determining a safe parking location (Applicant’s Response, pg. 9), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Higuchi, paragraph 0037, teaches the sensor data reception module receiving sensor data from one or more connected vehicles and paragraph 0034 teaches the sensor data reception module being located on the vehicle. The sensor data reception module would receive the sensor data of the vehicle and then use this sensor data to determine a safety score with the parking safety determination module, as disclosed in paragraph 0053. . Penilla, Col. 14, lines 51-56, discloses sensors that can produce actions, such as sounding a horn and turning on lights. Osborn, an engine warning light shows up on your dashboard, teaches a missing catalytic converter would trigger an oxygen sensor in the exhaust resulting a warning light showing up on the dashboard. Therefore, Higuchi, as modified, would use the security messages of Penilla and oxygen sensor data of Osborne, in addition to its own sensors, to determine a safe parking location.
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 vehicle security control module in claim 1, lines 9-10, claim 8, line 4, and claim 15, line 5.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, lines 9-10, claim 8, line 4, and claim 15, line 5, the limitation “a vehicle security control module” appears the be new matter. There is no detail in the specification detailing what it is as paragraph 0029 of the specification states that the vehicle systems include a safety system 151, a security system 152, a powertrain system 153, an input system 155, an output system 156, and an autonomous vehicle system 157, but does not list “a vehicle security control module”.
In claim 1, lines 9-10, claim 8, line 4, and claim 15, line 5, the limitation “vehicle network messages generated by a vehicle security control module” appears the be new matter. Paragraph 0025 discloses sending messages via a data bus, but there is no disclosure of them being generated by a vehicle security control module.
In claim 1, lines 10-11, claim 8, lines 5-6, and claim 15, lines 6-7, the limitation “the vehicle network messages causing activation of at least one of a vehicle horn, vehicle lock, or vehicle lamp” appears to be new matter. Paragraph 0031 discloses the security system of the vehicle actuating the horn and/or lights of the vehicle by communicating using the data bus, but there is no disclosure of them being actuated by messages.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-20 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a vehicle security control module” in claim 1, lines 9-10, claim 8, line 4, and claim 15, line 5, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph 0065 of the specification states what a module could generally be, but there is no detail on what a vehicle security control module could be. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-20 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
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 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi (US 2022/0136847) in view of Penilla (US 9,230,440).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Higuchi discloses a system comprising:
a processor (Higuchi, [0032] regarding one or more processors); and
a memory in communication with the processor (Higuchi, [0032] regarding one or more memory modules that can be accessed by the one or more processors), the memory having a safe parking recommendation module having instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
analyze, by the processor, vehicle network activity on a vehicle network occurring in vehicles when parked at a plurality of parking locations, the vehicle network activity comprising vehicle network messages (Higuchi, [0059] regarding an adjusted utility score being based on the safety score, [0053] regarding determining a safety score associated with each of the available parking spaces identified based on data received by the sensor data reception module, [0037] regarding the sensor data reception module receiving sensor data from one or more connected vehicles, & [0056-0057] regarding determining when a connected vehicle is parked and using the parking location in the safety score determination);
determine a safe parking location for a vehicle from a plurality of parking locations based on reason information, wherein the reason information being based on the vehicle network activity analyzed by the processor (Higuchi, [0077] regarding selecting a parking space from among the available parking spaces identified based on the adjusted utility score), and
cause the vehicle to autonomously maneuver to the safe parking location (Higuchi, [0067] regarding the vehicle being driven autonomously to the selected parking space).
Higuchi does not disclose analyz[ing], by the processor, vehicle network activity on a vehicle network occurring in vehicles when parked at a plurality of parking locations, the vehicle network activity comprising vehicle network messages generated by a vehicle security control module on the vehicle network, the vehicle network messages causing activation of at least one of a vehicle horn, vehicle lock, or vehicle lamp while the vehicles are parked.
Penilla teaches that sensor data can include sounding a horn, turning on lights, flashing lights, and sounding alarms (Col. 14, lines 51-56).
Higuchi and Penilla are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of safe parking locations. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Higuchi to incorporate using horn, light, and alarm sensor data to determine a safe parking location, as disclosed by Penilla, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing the safety determination by having data that came from cars located at the parking location.
Therefore, Higuchi, as modified, teaches analyz[ing], by the processor, vehicle network activity on a vehicle network occurring in vehicles when parked at a plurality of parking locations, the vehicle network activity comprising vehicle network messages generated by a vehicle security control module on the vehicle network, the vehicle network messages causing activation of at least one of a vehicle horn, vehicle lock, or vehicle lamp while the vehicles are parked (By performing these actions, a vehicle security control module would be sending signals to cause the activation of these actions.).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Higuchi in view of Penilla teaches the system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as claimed in claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. Higuchi further teaches wherein the reason information is determined by vehicles parked at the plurality of parking locations and then transmitted to a remote server (Higuchi, [0034] regarding the utility score determination module being stored in the vehicle & [0016] regarding the connected vehicles and the server being communicatively coupled).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Higuchi in view of Penilla teaches the system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as claimed in claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. Higuchi further teaches wherein the reason information is determined by a remote server upon receiving vehicle network activity from vehicles parked at the plurality of parking locations (Higuchi, [0034] regarding one or more memory modules 304 including a utility score determination module, [0032] regarding the server comprising the one or more memory modules 304, & [0016] regarding the connected vehicles and the server being communicatively coupled).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Higuchi in view of Penilla teaches the system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as claimed in claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. Higuchi further teaches wherein the safe parking recommendation module further includes instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine the safe parking location based further upon one or more of: a location of the vehicle and a destination of the vehicle (Higuchi, [0045] regarding determining one or more available parking spaces based on the desired destination).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Higuchi in view of Penilla teaches the system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as claimed in claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. Higuchi further teaches wherein the safe parking recommendation module further includes instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the vehicle to display, via a display device located within the vehicle, a location of the safe parking location (Higuchi, [0029] regarding displaying navigation information to direct a driver to a parking space selected by the server on a screen).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi in view of Penilla, and further in view of Osborne (How to Know if Your Catalytic Converter Was Stolen: 7 Signs).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Higuchi in view of Penilla teaches the system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium as claimed in claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle network activity further includes:
oxygen sensor data indicating tampering of catalytic converters of vehicles parked at the plurality of parking locations.
Osborne teaches a missing catalytic converter would trigger an oxygen sensor in the exhaust resulting a warning light showing up on the dashboard (An engine warning light shows up on your dashboard).
Higuchi and Osborne are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle sensors. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Higuchi, as modified, to incorporate using an oxygen sensor, which determines a catalytic converter is missing, to determine a parking a location, as disclosed by Osborne, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing the safety determination by using oxygen sensor data that came from cars located at the parking location.
Therefore, Higuchi, as modified, teaches wherein the vehicle network activity further includes:
oxygen sensor data indicating tampering of catalytic converters of vehicles parked at the plurality of parking locations (Higuchi, would use oxygen sensor data from Osborne, in addition to the vehicle network message, to determine a safe parking location).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665