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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or “module” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first communication module, second communication module and a satellite navigation module.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
First communication module and second communication module” in claims 1-3, 6-17 which is in the paragraph 32 of specification was explained as follow: A first communication module 3 is configured to perform primarily emergency call (eCall), here through the first remote telecommunication network DN1, and a second communication module 4 is configured to provide primarily Internet access.
These two modules read as follow in the cited arts: a first communication module (Fig. 6, el. 600a) and second communication module (Fig. 6, el. 600b).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show elements as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Applicant required to file new drawings with box that indicate each element instead of empty boxes with just numbers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-12, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Marko (WO 2013086244).
Regarding claim 1, Marko teaches, a telematics control unit (Fig. 6B, el. 600’ TCU) for an automotive vehicle (abstract: devices and methods are provided to automatically initiate an enhanced 911 (E911) call from a telematics control unit (TCU) (e.g., a TCU deployed with cellular modem or mobile phone in a vehicle) to an answering point (e.g. public safety answering point or access point (PSAP) comprising:
a first communication module (Fig. 6B, el. 600a, Paragraph 89: TCU 600, 600' can also communicates with other wireless communication services (e.g., 3GPP, 802.1 l(n) wireless networks, Bluetooth®, etc.) via the transceiver 614 which can comprise a cellular modem, Bluetooth® radio modem, among other RF modems. In another example, the transceiver 614 communicates with wireless communication services via the device interface 608, and paragraph 83) comprising:
a first network access device (Paragraph 85: The processor 602 performs a TCU application (e.g., a modified mobile telephone operating system application) to implement one or more TSSS processes such as those described in connection with Figs. 2 through 5 and 8 and 9. The processor 602 with TCU application can, for example, can leverage the vehicle bus (e.g., to obtain and use vehicle data such as acceleration, brake speed, and other conditions), as well as leverage the cellular modem 614 for IP data (e.g., audio streaming) and data applications (e.g., weather on the web and points -of-interest applications) in addition to TSSS operations) configured to perform emergency calls (Fig. 5A-5B, el. 510: initiate E911 call, Paragraph 29: wireless telematics device location information to an access point during an emergency call by establishing a voice channel to an access point in response to the telematics device initiating an emergency call via a wireless network switch), and
a first data interface configured to exchange data with an automotive vehicle computer system (Paragraph 88: device interface 608 (e.g., a serial bus, a parallel bus, USB™, Fire Wire™, etc.) that communicates using protocols to internal and external devices and other similar electronic devices vehicle bus 620); and
a second communication module (Fig. 6B: head unit 600b) comprising:
a second network access device configured to exchange data with a telecommunication network (Fig. 6B, el. 630; controller with TCU APP 630),
a dedicated communication interface between the first communication module and the second communication module, wherein the first communication module and the second communication module being are configured to communicate through the dedicated communication interface (Paragraph 83: the TCU 600' can be tethered, that is, a TCU application 630 can be provided in the head unit 600b, along with the display 626, user interface 628 and radio receiver(s) 622 and/or 624; however, the TCU processor 602, transceiver 614 (e.g., a cellular modem), GPS receiver 610 and related devices can be placed in a remote unit 600a located apart from the head unit 600b (e.g., under the driver's seat and connected to the head unit via a USB cable or wirelessly), as shown in Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 3, Marko teaches, wherein the dedicated communication interface is configured to ensure a communication between the first communication module and the second communication module over a distance up to 15 meters (Paragraph 82-83 and Fig. 6B: a remote unit 600a located apart from the head unit 600b (e.g., under the driver's seat and connected to the head unit via a USB cable or wirelessly “which is less than 15 meter).
Regarding claim 5, Marko teaches, wherein the dedicated communication interface is a USB interface (Paragraph 88, 91).
Regarding claim 8, Marko teaches, in which wherein the second communication module comprises a satellite navigation module (Fig. 6, el. 610 GPS receiver and Paragraph 85).
Regarding claim 9, Marko teaches, in which wherein the first communication module is configured to perform emergency calls through at least one antenna, wherein the at least one antenna is being located in the second communication module (Paragraph 83: Fig. 6B can be advantageous because the remote unit 600a is less likely to be destroyed in a vehicle collision than the head unit 600b. The TCU 600, 600' has one or more antenna(e) (not shown) for cellular or radio reception).
Regarding claim 10, Marko teaches, in which wherein the first communication module is configured to perform emergency calls through at least one antenna, wherein the at least one antenna is being located outside the first communication module and outside the second communication module (Paragraph 83, 94).
Regarding claim 11, Marko teaches, in which wherein the first communication module comprises a backup antenna,
wherein the first communication module being is able to perform emergency calls through the back up backup antenna (Paragraph 83: one or more antenna).
Regarding claim 12, Marko teaches, in which wherein the second communication module comprises a second data communication interface configured to exchange data with the automotive vehicle computer system (Fig. 6B, el. 628).
Regarding claim 16, see claim 1 rejection.
Regarding claim 17, Marko teaches, automotive vehicle (see claim 16), in which wherein the first communication module is located in a crash-safe area of the vehicle, and wherein the second communication module is located outside the crash-safe area (Paragraph 83: the TCU can have a form factor other than an in-dash or factory-installed head unit such as in a rearview mirror configuration).
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 2, 4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marko (WO 2013086244) in view of Litichever (US 2020389469).
Regarding claim 2, Marko teaches, wherein the first communication module and the second communication module are configured to communicate through the dedicated communication interface (Fig. 6A and 6B).
Marko does not explicitly teach that the first and second module communicating according to a master/slave protocol, the first communication module being the master entity and the second communication module being the slave entity.
Litichever in the same art of endeavor teaches the above (Paragraph 282: The master and slaves are typically microcontrollers, but may be implemented in specialized hardware or ASICs in order to save cost, space, or power).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Marko with Litichever in order to improve the system to simplified control flow due to a single point of command, enhanced predictability and reliability through a deterministic communication sequence, and easier scalability by allowing more slaves to be added without complex reconfiguration.
Regarding claim 4, Marko teaches, dedicated communication interface (Fig. 6B).
Marko does not teach wherein the dedicated communication interface is a 1000BaseT1- interface compliant with the IEEE 802.3bp standard.
Litichever in the same art of endeavor teaches communication interface that is a 1000BaseT1- interface compliant with the IEEE 802.3bp standard (Paragraph 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Marko with Litichever in order to improve the system and allow cost and space savings through the use of single-pair wiring, which also reduces vehicle weight. It enables faster data transmission with lower latency than traditional networks and offers simplified, more robust cabling architecture that improves reliability and allows for the use of standard IP software.
Regarding claim 6, Marko teaches, the claimed system.
Marko does not teach a power supply configured to provide providing electrical power to both the first communication module and the second communication module.
Litichever in the same art of endeavor teaches the above (Paragraph 517, 660: using power supply/source to provide power for system components when needed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Marko with Litichever in order to improve the system and ensure continues service.
Regarding claim 7, Marko in view of Litichever teaches, wherein the power supply is located in the first communication module (Litichever Paragraph 43).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marko (WO 2013086244) in view of Hort (US 20160197783).
Regarding claim 13, Marko teaches, the claimed first communication module in the claimed system (see claim 1).
Marko does teach in which wherein the first communication module comprises a first SIM card associated to the first network access device.
Hort in the same art of endeavor teaches removable device, adapted to connect to a head unit of a vehicle and comprising: a first communication module configured for bi-directional communication of data with the head unit; a second communication module configured for bi-directional communication of data with a wireless network, in particular a mobile telecommunication network (abstract: removable device, adapted to connect to a head unit of a vehicle and comprising: a first communication module configured for bi-directional communication of data with the head unit; a second communication module configured for bi-directional communication of data with a wireless network, in particular a mobile telecommunication network), wherein the first communication module comprises a first SIM card associated to the first network access device (Paragraph 94: the communication module 400 may comprise a SIM card 470 which may be accessed by the authentication unit 460. Again, the authentication unit 460 may be provided as a part of the controller 430).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Marko with Hort in order to improve the system
And provide a secure way to identify and authenticate users on a mobile network, which enables device connectivity for calls, texts, and data, ability to easily switch phones, enhanced security through encryption, and cost savings for international travel by avoiding roaming fees.
Regarding claim 14, Marko teaches, the claimed first communication module in the claimed system (see claim 1).
Marko does teach wherein the first communication module comprises a second SIM card associated to the second network access device and wherein the telematics control unit being is further configured for the second network access device to access to the second SIM card using the dedicated communication interface.
Hort in the same art of endeavor teaches removable device, adapted to connect to a head unit of a vehicle and comprising: a first communication module configured for bi-directional communication of data with the head unit; a second communication module configured for bi-directional communication of data with a wireless network, in particular a mobile telecommunication network (abstract: removable device, adapted to connect to a head unit of a vehicle and comprising: a first communication module configured for bi-directional communication of data with the head unit; a second communication module configured for bi-directional communication of data with a wireless network, in particular a mobile telecommunication network),
wherein the first communication module comprises a second SIM card associated to the second network access device and wherein the telematics control unit being is further configured for the second network access device to access to the second SIM card using the dedicated communication interface (Paragraph 50, 75, 79).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Marko with Hort in order to improve the system
And provide a secure way to identify and authenticate users on a mobile network, which enables device connectivity for calls, texts, and data, ability to easily switch phones, enhanced security through encryption, and cost savings for international travel by avoiding roaming fees.
Regarding claim 15, Marko teaches, the claimed first communication module in the claimed system (see claim 1).
Marko does teach in which wherein the second communication module comprises a second SIM card associated to the second network access device.
Hort in the same art of endeavor teaches removable device, adapted to connect to a head unit of a vehicle and comprising: a first communication module configured for bi-directional communication of data with the head unit; a second communication module configured for bi-directional communication of data with a wireless network, in particular a mobile telecommunication network (abstract: removable device, adapted to connect to a head unit of a vehicle and comprising: a first communication module configured for bi-directional communication of data with the head unit; a second communication module configured for bi-directional communication of data with a wireless network, in particular a mobile telecommunication network), wherein the second communication module comprises a second SIM card associated to the second network access device (Paragraph 50, 75, 79).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Marko with Hort in order to improve the system and provide a secure way to identify and authenticate users on a mobile network, which enables device connectivity for calls, texts, and data, ability to easily switch phones, enhanced security through encryption, and cost savings for international travel by avoiding roaming fees.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA EL-ZOOBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Carolyn Edward can be reached at (571)270-7136. 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.
/MARIA EL-ZOOBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692