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 § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas as indicated by in-line comments below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for reasons also indicated by in-line comments below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons also indicated by in-line comments below. 19. A non-transitory medium comprising program code which prompt (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity) an electronic computing apparatus (does not integrate into a practical application because generic computer performing generic computer functions; not significantly more because generic computer performing generic computer functions) , when the program code is processed by the electronic computing apparatus, to: generate information on a motor vehicle status (abstract; mental processes; observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) using an emergency call control system within the motor vehicle (does not integrate into a practical application because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; not significantly more because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use) ; and transmit the information to the monitoring system using the emergency call control system (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity) . 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. Note that, in the following rejections, the highlighting indicates differences from the exact claim language, or items involved in an obviousness argument. Claim(s) 11-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giessi (DE 10021733)(The following remarks are made with respect to the English translation, supplied by Applicant, 1/3/24) . Regarding claim 11, Giessi discloses a method for obtaining information on the status of a motor vehicle (1; see paragraph 24) during a production process (production process; see paragraph 30) of the motor vehicle using a monitoring system (production controller; paragraph 8; or LCT; see paragraph 24) , comprising: providing a motor vehicle blank (the vehicle during the production process; see paragraphs 24-25 and 30) during the production process, said motor vehicle blank having at least one emergency call control system (emergency call function; see paragraph 14) ; generating the information on the motor vehicle status (see paragraph 25) ... ; and transmitting the information to the monitoring system (see paragraph 25) ... . Giessi does not disclose the highlighted limitations: generating the information on the motor vehicle status using the emergency call control system within the motor vehicle ; and transmitting the information to the monitoring system using the emergency call control system . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Giessi such that the generating and transmitting of information were done by the emergency call control system , because such a modification would have involved a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Regarding claim 12, Giessi further teaches the method of claim 11, wherein at least one item of position information of the motor vehicle is transmitted to the monitoring system during the production process as the information (see paragraphs 8 and 25) . Regarding claim 13, Giessi further teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the motor vehicle blank is at least provided as a movable motor vehicle blank (it moves through the assembly line; see paragraph 8) . Regarding claim 14, Giessi further teaches the method of claim 11, wherein a plurality of vehicle states is detected within the motor vehicle during the production process (see paragraph 15, “production mode”) and the plurality of vehicle states is transmitted to the monitoring system as the motor vehicle status ( supra ) . Regarding claim 15, Giessi further teaches the method of claim 11, wherein information is transmitted to the monitoring system multiple times during the production process as a function of the progress of production (see paragraph 8) . Regarding claim 16, Giessi further teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the information is transmitted to the monitoring system multiple times based on events (see paragraphs 8 and 15) . Regarding claim 17, Giessi further teaches the method of claim 11, wherein, when a specified termination criterion is reached during the production process and/or following the production process, one or more of the generation of the information and the transmission of the information is terminated (see paragraph 15) . Regarding claim 18, Giessi further teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the emergency call control system is configured to make an electronic emergency call as a function of a user input in accordance with the termination criterion (see paragraph 14) . Regarding claim 19, see the foregoing rejection of claim 11, for all limitations except the following. Giessi discloses a non-transitory medium comprising program code which prompt an electronic computing apparatus (see paragraph 12) , when the program code is processed by the electronic computing apparatus, to: ... (limitations similar to those of claim 11). Regarding claim 20, see the foregoing rejection of claim 11. Regarding claim 21, Giessi discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the emergency call control system is a required emergency call control system (see paragraph 14) . Regarding claim 22, see the foregoing rejection of claim 13. Regarding claims 23 and 24, see the foregoing rejection of claim 14. Regarding claims 25-27, see the foregoing rejection of claim 15. Regarding claims 28-30, see the foregoing rejection of claim 17. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu (CN 110745206 A) and Carmody (WO 9728988 A1) each disclose a communication module that can be used both for emergencies and non-emergency communications. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GEOFFREY T EVANS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2369 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 9 AM - 5:30 PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Walter Lindsay can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1674 . 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. /GEOFFREY T EVANS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2852 /WALTER L LINDSAY JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852