DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 2 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts, on pages 9-10 of Remarks, that “First, claim 1 recites in part "detecting a spatiotemporal match between at least two of the plurality of vehicle computers." Grunfeld was cited to as allegedly disclosing this recitation. Grunfeld is directed to "a platform for facilitating communication between vehicles includes at least one processor, at least one memory, at least one communication interface for communicating over a network, and a plurality of program instructions stored in the at least one memory." Abstract. Further, Grunfeld specifically is concerned with user requests and the disclosed "matching criteria" in Grunfeld relates to matching requirements between parties. See Para. 25: "The platform validates offers based on the platform rules and user engagement; the platform determines all parties involved have matched the requirements. The platform further manages the account balances between users, to debit and credit users accordingly. The platform is integrated with DB schema or Ledger, for the purpose of recording usage data." Claim 1, on the other hand, recites "detecting a spatiotemporal match between at least two of the plurality of vehicle computers." Thus, the distinction between Grunfeld and claim 1 is structural in that claim 1 relates to a messaging channel and matching between "vehicle computers," and not matching requirement between user initiated requests, as in Grunfeld. Accordingly, for at least this reason, Grunfeld cannot anticipate claim 1.”
On the contrary, detecting a spatiotemporal match between two vehicle computer users using GPS data, as disclosed by Grunfeld, constitutes the claimed “detecting a spatiotemporal match between at least two of the plurality of vehicle computers, using the collected sensor data”. Specifically, Grunfeld states, in paragraph [0022]: “The platform receives, over the network, a request from a remote computing device of a requestor 15 of one of the user accounts for surrounding vehicles to slow down. The platform then identifies at least one recipient 14 of the user accounts to send the request by matching criteria. The criteria includes a location of the requestor 15 and the at least one recipient 15, a vector of the requestor 15 and the at least one recipient 14, and a nature of the request.” [emphasis added]. Clearly, as seen in paragraph [0022] and in Fig. 1, Grunfeld detects a match between two vehicle computers that is based on the respective location of each of the two vehicle computers. In Grunfeld, “requestor 15” and “recipient 14” refer not only to persons, but also their respective vehicle computers.
Applicant asserts, on page 10 of Remarks, that “Further, claim 1 also now recites in part "upon failing to establish the messaging channel, conducting one of: establishing a first messaging channel between a secondary computing device predefined." In rejecting the previous version of claim 2, the Examiner admitted that Grunfeld fails to teach or suggest the recitations of claim 2 and cited to Salter as allegedly curing the deficiencies. See Office Action, pages 8-9. Salter is directed to a state of charge management for a traction battery of a vehicle. See claim 1. In rejecting claim 2, the Examiner loosely refers to steps 402-422 of FIG. 4 of Salter, but fails to adequately map such disclosure to the claim recitations. Instead, the Office Action vaguely maps to Salter, including attempting to equate "which may reject [a charge request]" to the claimed "failing to establish a messaging channel." Further, the Examiner simply repeats the claim recitations when attempting to explain how it would be obvious to combine Grunfeld with Salter. See Office Action, page 9.”
On the contrary, Salter clearly discloses that after an initial failure to have a charging request approved, various other steps are taken, which ultimately lead to a messaging connection between two vehicles. Specifically, Salter states, in paragraph [0029]: “Responsive to a user input selecting one of the candidates, the computing platform 144 reaches out to the selected candidate donor vehicle 302 by sending the charging conditions 312 to the candidate and/or the mobile device 308 associated with the candidate vehicle 302 and asks for approval. The charging conditions 312 may be provided to the user of the candidate donor vehicle 302 for approval. For instance, the charging conditions 312 may be presented to the mobile device 308 associated with the candidate donor vehicle 302 and provide the user with options to approve or decline the V2V charging request. If the request is approved, the process proceeds to operation 414. Otherwise, the process proceeds to operation 408.” [emphasis added]. Salter further states, in paragraph [0030]: “At operation 418, responsive to identifying a candidate charging cable donor 304, the computing platform 144 sends a request to borrow the charging cable 284 to the candidate charging cable donor 304. The request includes the cable conditions 328 to allow the candidate charging cable donor 304 to make an informed decision. If the request is declined, the process returns from operation 420 to operation 416. Otherwise, responsive to a user approval to the request to borrow the charging cable 284, the process proceeds to operation 422 and the computing platform 144 directs the vehicle to the charging location 318 to proceed with the V2V charging.” [emphasis added]. Clearly, Salter discloses that after an initial failure to receive approval, approval is received, whereupon the drivers of the respective vehicles communicate such that a meeting location for charging is conveyed.
Applicant asserts, on page 10 of Remarks, that “All of this aside, Salter fails to cure the deficiencies of Grunfeld and amended claim 1 is patentable over the cited references. First, claim 1 recites in part "a secondary computing device" for establishing another "messaging channel" with the vehicle computer or driver. It is unclear from the Office Action how Salter could disclose such secondary computing device within the context of the claims. Salter instead discloses "one or more candidate donor vehicle 102" that "may be directly detected by the receiver vehicle 102 via one or more direct wireless connections through the wireless transceiver 232 and/or the TCU 276." Para. 29. It is unclear whether an additional first, second, third or fourth "messaging channel," as recited in claim 1, is established in Salter. Accordingly, Salter fails to cure the deficiencies of Grunfeld for at least this reason.”
On the contrary, Salter clearly discloses that a potential donor possesses a computing device. As seen in Fig. 3, the requestor possesses the vehicle 112 and the mobile communications device 228, while various donor vehicles are labelled 302 and 304 (and are associated with respective mobile communication devices 308 and 310). Salter states, in paragraph [0029]: “Responsive to a user input selecting one of the candidates, the computing platform 144 reaches out to the selected candidate donor vehicle 302 by sending the charging conditions 312 to the candidate and/or the mobile device 308 associated with the candidate vehicle 302 and asks for approval.” [emphasis added]. Clearly, the potential donor’s mobile device 308 constitutes the claimed “secondary computing device”. As outlined above, the communication between the requesting party and the donor that takes place in order to convey a meeting location, constitutes a messaging channel.
Applicant asserts, on page 10 of Remarks, that “Further, claim 1 further recites in part "upon failing to establish the messaging channel." As best as can be determined from the Office Action, it appears the Examiner rejects this recitation over Salter's "user input indicative of a rejection to the counter-offer" as it relates to a request for vehicle charging. See Para. 29. However, a rejected charging proposal is not the same as "failing to establish the messaging channel," as claimed. Again, Salter is directed to finding vehicle charging and not about "establishing a messaging channel." For at least this reason, Salter fails to disclose the claim recitations.”
On the contrary, as explained above, and as seen in Fig. 4, an accepted condition in step 406 ultimately leads to the messaging that takes place in step 422 “Direct vehicle to meeting location, start to charge vehicle”. Therefore, an initial rejection of this condition by the potential donor constitutes a failure to establish the messaging channel of step 422.
Applicant asserts, on pages 10-11 of Remarks, that “Even moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Grunfeld and Salter in the manner loosely outlined in the Office Action. Grunfeld is directed to a "platform for facilitating communication between vehicles includes at least one processor, at least one memory, at least one communication interface for communicating over a network." Salter is directed to "vehicle-to-vehicle charging." See Abstracts. These references therefore address different problems and operate according to different architectures and principles of operation. Grunfeld's focus is a centralized communications platform that "identifies at least one recipient of the user accounts to send the request by matching criteria" where "[t]he criteria includes at least a location of the requestor and the at least one recipient, a vector of the requestor and the at least one recipient, and a nature of the request." Para. 15. Salter, in contrast, is concerned with communication with donor vehicles where requests and offers are sent between vehicles for V2V charging. Because Salter is directed to solving an EV charging logistics problem and not a fallback messaging-channel problem of the type claimed, its teachings would not naturally be imported into Grunfeld's messaging platform. The proposed combination would also require substantial reconstruction of Grunfeld, not a simple substitution of known elements. For yet these additional reasons, claim 1 is patentable over the cited references.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, each of Grunfeld and Salter relates to messaging between vehicles for the purpose of coordinating an exchange between the respective drivers of those vehicles. Grunfeld states, in paragraph [0024]: “The giver 19 and the taker 20 may then connect over the network to coordinate the exchange of the parking spot. Once the taker 20 parks in the parking spot, a monetary transaction from the taker 20 to the giver 19 occurs.” [emphasis added]. Likewise, Salter discloses a method according to which a particular driver may help another driver (rather than transferring a parking spot, using one’s vehicle to charge another driver’s vehicle). Therefore, the features of Salter can be integrated into the invention of Grunfeld to expand the range of the types of exchanges between drivers in the latter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. The factual inquiries 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.
4. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10, 13-14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunfeld, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0250967 (hereinafter Grunfeld), in view of Salter et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0194253 (hereinafter Salter).
Regarding claim 1, Grunfeld discloses a method of vehicle-to-vehicle messaging, the method comprising using a server computer (disclosed is a method for facilitating communication between vehicles using a platform, according to Abstract, [0005]-[0006], whereby said platform comprises a server, according to [0016]), for:
receiving sensor data from a plurality of vehicle computers of respective vehicles being driven, and collecting the received sensor data (computing devices, located onboard respective vehicles, broadcast live feeds of their respective locations and vectors, determined via a GPS [“sensor data”], to the server via a wireless network, according to [0016], [0025]);
detecting a spatiotemporal match between at least two of the plurality of vehicle computers, using the collected sensor data (the platform receives a request from a remote computing device of a requestor, and identifies at least one recipient based on matching criteria, comprising the respective locations of the requestor and the at least one recipient, according to [0005]-[0006], [0015], [0022]-[0024], whereby this is a spatiotemporal match because the GPS data is a live feed of a given computing device’s location (e.g., a match is based on computing devices being close to each other at the present time), according to [0016], [0025])); and
establishing a messaging channel between at least two of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match (two users matched by the platform connect over the network to coordinate an exchange, according to [0024]).
Grunfeld does not expressly disclose that upon failing to establish the messaging channel, conducting one of: establishing a first messaging channel between a secondary computing device predefined for a first one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match and a second one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, establishing a second messaging channel between a secondary computing device predefined for a driver of a vehicle installed with a first one of the vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, and a second one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, establishing a third messaging channel between respective secondary computing devices predefined for the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, and establishing a fourth messaging channel between respective secondary computing devices predefined for drivers of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match.
Salter discloses that upon failing to establish the messaging channel, conducting one of: establishing a first messaging channel between a secondary computing device predefined for a first one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match and a second one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, establishing a second messaging channel between a secondary computing device predefined for a driver of a vehicle installed with a first one of the vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, and a second one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, establishing a third messaging channel between respective secondary computing devices predefined for the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, and establishing a fourth messaging channel between respective secondary computing devices predefined for drivers of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match (an electric vehicle in need of recharging, yet out of range of the nearest charging station, seeks a candidate donor vehicle that is capable of V2V charging, whereby a charging request is sent to a candidate donor vehicle, which may reject the proposal [“failing to establish the messaging channel”], whereupon a charging request is sent to another candidate donor, which may accept the proposal, whereupon the requester and the donor communicate to an agreed location for charging [“establishing a first messaging channel between a secondary computing device predefined for a first one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match and a second one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match”], according to [0029], Fig. 4 [steps 402, 404, 406, 408, 414, and 422]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grunfeld with Salter such that upon failing to establish the messaging channel, conducting one of: establishing a first messaging channel between a secondary computing device predefined for a first one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match and a second one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, establishing a second messaging channel between a secondary computing device predefined for a driver of a vehicle installed with a first one of the vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, and a second one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, establishing a third messaging channel between respective secondary computing devices predefined for the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, and establishing a fourth messaging channel between respective secondary computing devices predefined for drivers of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to assist an electric vehicle driver whose battery’s charge level is insufficient to reach the nearest charging station (Salter: [0029]).
Claim 14 recites the system, comprising a processing circuitry; and a memory in communication with the processing circuitry, the memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry (the platform comprises a processor and a memory, said memory storing program instructions that are executed by said processor, according to Abstract, [0005]), that performs the method recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 20 recites the non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for causing a processing circuitry of a server computer (the platform comprises a processor and a memory [“non-transitory computer readable medium”], said memory storing program instructions that are executed by said processor, according to Abstract, [0005]) to perform the method recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Grunfeld and Salter discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Grunfeld discloses receiving from each respective one of at least two of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, a request message indicating a request to establish the messaging channel and conditioning the establishment of the messaging channel upon said receiving (the platform receives a request from the requestor, and sends, to the recipient, an offer to communicate with the requestor, with a prompt to either deny or accept the request (the recipient transmitting an accept response back to the platform constitutes sending a request to communicate with the requestor), according to Abstract, [0005]-[0006], [0015]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Grunfeld and Salter discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Grunfeld discloses receiving from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, a request message indicating a request to establish the messaging channel and conditioning the establishment of the messaging channel upon said receiving (the recipient responds to a prompt to either deny or accept the request to communicate with the requestor (the recipient transmitting an accept response back to the platform constitutes sending a request to communicate with the requestor), according to Abstract, [0005]-[0006], [0015]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Grunfeld and Salter discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Grunfeld discloses receiving from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers, data characterizing a driver of a vehicle that is installed with the vehicle computer, and conditioning said establishing of the messaging channel upon the received data characterizing the driver (the platform receives data characterizing a driver’s desire for a specific action in relation to another driver, according to [0024]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Grunfeld and Salter discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Grunfeld discloses that the received sensor data comprises at least one of location data, Global Position System (GPS) data and image data (the platform receives GPS data, according to [0016], [0025]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Grunfeld and Salter discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Grunfeld discloses receiving data from a driver of a vehicle that the vehicle computer is installed in, and conditioning the establishing of the messaging channel upon the data received from the driver (a recipient may send an accept response [“data”] to a prompt to establish communication with a requestor, according to Abstract, [0005]-[0006], [0015]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Grunfeld and Salter discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Grunfeld discloses establishing the messaging channel between only two of the plurality of vehicle computers having the spatiotemporal match (the network connection for coordinating an exchange is between two vehicle computers that were matched based on location, according to [0024]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Grunfeld and Salter discloses all the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, Grunfeld discloses that when executed by the processing circuitry, the instructions further cause the system to perform at least one of:
receive from each respective one of at least two of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, a request message indicating a request to establish the messaging channel (the platform receives a request from the requestor, and sends, to the recipient, an offer to communicate with the requestor, with a prompt to either deny or accept the request (the recipient transmitting an accept response back to the platform constitutes sending a request to communicate with the requestor), according to Abstract, [0005]-[0006], [0015]), and
receive from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers, data characterizing a driver of the vehicle that is installed with the vehicle computer, and condition said establishing of the messaging channel upon the received data characterizing the driver (the platform receives data characterizing a driver’s desire for a specific action in relation to another driver, according to [0024]).
Claim 17 does not differ substantively from claim 7, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
6. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunfeld in view of Salter as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Simoniy et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0292186 (hereinafter Simoniy).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Grunfeld and Salter discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Grunfeld nor Salter expressly discloses that said detected spatiotemporal match pertains to a point in time that is of a predefined period of time before said establishing.
Simoniy discloses that said detected spatiotemporal match pertains to a point in time that is of a predefined period of time before said establishing (based on a detected proximity between two communication devices, a connection is established between those two communication devices after a predefined period of time, according to [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grunfeld as modified by Salter with Simoniy such that said detected spatiotemporal match pertains to a point in time that is of a predefined period of time before said establishing.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to mitigate low initial received signal strength (Simoniy: [0097]).
7. Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunfeld in view of Salter as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, further in view of Whyte et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0230537 (hereinafter Whyte).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Grunfeld and Salter discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Grunfeld nor Salter expressly discloses receiving dead reckoning data from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers and using the received dead reckoning data for detecting the spatiotemporal match.
Whyte discloses receiving dead reckoning data from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers and using the received dead reckoning data for detecting the spatiotemporal match (the positions of V2X system participants are updated using dead reckoning information in order to create a model of the local environment around a V2X system participant in order to detect potential collisions and avoid them, according to [0038]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grunfeld as modified by Salter with Whyte by receiving dead reckoning data from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers and using the received dead reckoning data for detecting the spatiotemporal match.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to efficiently and safely position vehicles with respect to each other (Whyte: [0036]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Grunfeld and Salter discloses all the limitations of claim 14.
Neither Grunfeld nor Salter expressly discloses causing the system to perform at least one of: receive a request message from one of the plurality of vehicle computers, select a set of predefined fixed messages based on a type of the request message received from the vehicle computer, and limit communication over the messaging channel to the selected set, establish the messaging channel between only two of the plurality of vehicle computers having the spatiotemporal match, and receive dead reckoning data from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers, and use the received dead reckoning data for detecting the spatiotemporal match.
Whyte discloses causing the system to perform at least one of: receive a request message from one of the plurality of vehicle computers, select a set of predefined fixed messages based on a type of the request message received from the vehicle computer, and limit communication over the messaging channel to the selected set, establish the messaging channel between only two of the plurality of vehicle computers having the spatiotemporal match, and receive dead reckoning data from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers, and use the received dead reckoning data for detecting the spatiotemporal match (the positions of V2X system participants are updated using dead reckoning information in order to create a model of the local environment around a V2X system participant in order to detect potential collisions and avoid them [“receive dead reckoning data from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers, and use the received dead reckoning data for detecting the spatiotemporal match”], according to [0038]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grunfeld as modified by Salter with Whyte by causing the system to perform at least one of: receive a request message from one of the plurality of vehicle computers, select a set of predefined fixed messages based on a type of the request message received from the vehicle computer, and limit communication over the messaging channel to the selected set, establish the messaging channel between only two of the plurality of vehicle computers having the spatiotemporal match, and receive dead reckoning data from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers, and use the received dead reckoning data for detecting the spatiotemporal match.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to efficiently and safely position vehicles with respect to each other (Whyte: [0036]).
8. Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunfeld in view of Salter as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, further in view of Yang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0421985 (hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Grunfeld and Salter discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Grunfeld nor Salter expressly discloses at least one of: deriving location data from image data comprised in the received sensor data, deriving vehicle type data from image data comprised in the received sensor data, and deriving vehicle identification data from image data comprised in the received sensor data.
Yang discloses at least one of: deriving location data from image data comprised in the received sensor data, deriving vehicle type data from image data comprised in the received sensor data, and deriving vehicle identification data from image data comprised in the received sensor data (a client device captures a reference image, transmits said reference image to a server, and said server determines the location of said client device using said reference image [“deriving location data from image data comprised in the received sensor data”], according to [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grunfeld as modified by Salter with Yang by at least one of: deriving location data from image data comprised in the received sensor data, deriving vehicle type data from image data comprised in the received sensor data, and deriving vehicle identification data from image data comprised in the received sensor data.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate location determination in situations in which GPS-based positioning is not possible.
Claim 18 does not differ substantively from claim 9, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
9. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunfeld in view of Salter as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Carte et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0352451 (hereinafter Carte).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Grunfeld and Salter discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Grunfeld nor Salter expressly discloses limiting communication over the messaging channel to a set of predefined fixed messages.
Carte discloses limiting communication over the messaging channel to a set of predefined fixed messages (text messages sent from a vehicle to other vehicles are selected from a predefined set of text messages, according to [0044]-[0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grunfeld as modified by Salter with Carte by limiting communication over the messaging channel to a set of predefined fixed messages.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent accidents that are caused by driver inattentiveness (Carte: [0003]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Grunfeld and Salter discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Grunfeld nor Salter expressly discloses receiving a request message from one of the plurality of vehicle computers, selecting a set of predefined fixed messages based on a type of the request message received from the vehicle computer, and limiting communication over the messaging channel to the selected set.
Carte discloses receiving a request message from one of the plurality of vehicle computers, selecting a set of predefined fixed messages based on a type of the request message received from the vehicle computer, and limiting communication over the messaging channel to the selected set (the driver of a vehicle selects on of a plurality of message categories, and then is provided with a set of messages in that selected category that can be sent to another vehicle, according to [0044]-[0045], Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grunfeld as modified by Salter with Carte by receiving a request message from one of the plurality of vehicle computers, selecting a set of predefined fixed messages based on a type of the request message received from the vehicle computer, and limiting communication over the messaging channel to the selected set.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent accidents that are caused by driver inattentiveness (Carte: [0003]-[0005]).
Conclusion
10. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights