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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies a new combination of prior arts to for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Scholl teaches the wireless link between the passenger vehicle 1010 and police vehicle 1020 uses WIFI or Bluetooth protocol and performs verification the authority of the police vehicle at steps 4030-4040 after the establishment of the wireless link at step 4005 (See Fig. 4, para [0018] and [0036]) but fails to expressly teach the newly introduced claim limitation “broadcasting, by the one or more processors, advertisements for other vehicles to establish wireless communication links with the first vehicle; after broadcasting the advertisements, receiving, by the one or more processors and from a second vehicle, a request to establish a wireless communication link to the second vehicle: establishing, by the one or more processors and based on the request to establish the wireless communication link, the wireless communication link to the second vehicle” in claim 1 and in corresponding claims 11 and 20.
However, in the same field of WIFI or Bluetooth communication, Raikar teaches a vehicle (analogous to the “first vehicle” or passenger vehicle 1010) broadcasts its network identifier to the public at step 302, receives a request from a client device / vehicle (analogues to the “second vehicle” or police vehicle 1020) to connect the client device with the vehicle at step 204 and establishes a wireless session between the vehicle and the client device based on the request at step 306 and exchanges data at step 308 after the connection has been established. See Fig. 3 and para [0040] and [0043], “The client device as described herein may include a user equipment, a mobile device, a tablet, a smartwatch, a laptop, a smart glass, an internet-of-things (IoT) device, or a smart vehicle. The vehicle may be an autonomous vehicle, a semi-autonomous vehicle, or a non-autonomous vehicle.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scholl’s system to establish a WIFI or Bluetooth link between the passenger vehicle and the police vehicle based on the steps taught by Raikar to improve safety.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5,11-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholl (Pub. No.: US 2019/0069179 A1) in view of Raikar (Pub. No.: US 2025/0191411 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Scholl teaches a method (abstract, authorized access to vehicle data) comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors of an automotive computing device of a first vehicle, via a corresponding plurality of short-range communication links and from a plurality of computing devices each storing a corresponding digital vehicle key of a plurality of digital vehicle keys associated with occupants of the first vehicle, corresponding information associated with each of the plurality of digital vehicle keys (para [0018], “In these examples, the data authority may be considered to encompass both the computing components integrated with, or proximate to the vehicle that collects the data about the vehicle and its occupants and portions of the intermediate server.” and para [0020], “The data authority system may also communicate with other systems in the car not integrated into the car itself. For example, government issued identification cards such as a driver's license may contain near field communications (NFC) technologies such as Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags. The vehicle may be equipped with a Near Field Communication (NFC) reader that may extract an identification number from the identification card.”. The vehicle 2020 includes a data authority system to collect occupants’ information from their IDs via NFC);
determining, by the one or more processors and based on the corresponding information associated with each of the plurality of digital vehicle keys, corresponding profile information for each of the occupants of the first vehicle (para [0034], “In these examples, the vehicle may identify the driver by communication with NFC chips in the driver's license of the driver, through user input, or other identification means. The data authority may utilize the profile of the driver to determine the access rules and conditions. In other examples, other occupants may create profiles or rules pertaining to their personal data (e.g., identity from their driver's license).”. The ID data identifies the occupants and profiles.);
verifying, by the one or more processors and using the wireless link (Fig. 4, the wireless link is established between the authority system of the police vehicle 1020 and the data authority of the passenger vehicle 1010), that the second vehicle is authorized to receive the corresponding profile information for each of the occupants (Fig. 2, Fig. 4, step 4040, para [0040], “The data authority may respond with an access response 4040, including the level of access (DRM) that the data authority is willing to grant for the data items.” and para [0043], “In some examples, the data authority system may ask permission from the vehicle occupants prior to approving the request from the trusted authority system. As already noted, the data authority system may allow the vehicle owner to setup a profile which describes the particular data items collected and gives the owner the option of allowing access, allowing limited access, prompting the occupants, or denying access.”. The data authority of the vehicle 2020 may grant or deny the police vehicle’s 2010 access to the occupants’ information using the wireless connection); and
based on the second vehicle being authorized receive the corresponding profile information for each of the occupants, sending, by the one or more processors and via the wireless communication link, the corresponding profile information for each of the occupants of the vehicle to the second vehicle (Fig. 4, step 4060, para [0044], “In some examples, prior to sending the data streams 4060 the data authority may gather the sensor data. For example the data authority may query short range wireless sensors in driver's licenses, insurance cards, or the like.”.).
Scholl teaches the wireless link between the passenger vehicle 1010 and police vehicle 1020 uses WIFI or Bluetooth protocol and performs verification the authority of the police vehicle at steps 4030-4040 after the establishment of the wireless link at step 4005 (See Fig. 4, para [0018] and [0036]) but fails to expressly teach broadcasting, by the one or more processors, advertisements for other vehicles to establish wireless communication links with the first vehicle; after broadcasting the advertisements, receiving, by the one or more processors and from a second vehicle, a request to establish a wireless communication link to the second vehicle: establishing, by the one or more processors and based on the request to establish the wireless communication link, the wireless communication link to the second vehicle.
However, in the same field of WIFI or Bluetooth communication, Raikar teaches a vehicle (analogous to the “first vehicle” or passenger vehicle 1010) broadcasts its network identifier to the public at step 302, receives a request from a client device / vehicle (analogues to the “second vehicle” or police vehicle 1020) to connect the client device with the vehicle at step 204 and establishes a wireless session between the vehicle and the client device based on the request at step 306 and exchanges data at step 308 after the connection has been established. See Fig. 3 and para [0040] and [0043], “The client device as described herein may include a user equipment, a mobile device, a tablet, a smartwatch, a laptop, a smart glass, an internet-of-things (IoT) device, or a smart vehicle. The vehicle may be an autonomous vehicle, a semi-autonomous vehicle, or a non-autonomous vehicle.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scholl’s system to establish a WIFI or Bluetooth link between the passenger vehicle and the police vehicle based on the steps taught by Raikar to improve safety.
Regarding claim 2, Scholl in the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein sending the corresponding profile information for each of the occupants of the vehicle to the second vehicle further comprises:
establishing, by the one or more processors, a wireless communication link with a second automotive computing device of the second vehicle (Fig. 2 and para [0018], “In some of these examples, the data authority system and the trusted authority system may communicate with each other through point to point wireless communication.”. The data authority of the vehicle 2020 wirelessly communicates with the trusted authority of the police vehicle 2010);
receiving, by the one or more processors and from the second vehicle via the wireless communication link, a query for the corresponding profile information for the occupants of the vehicle (Fig. 4, step 4030, para [0037], “The trusted authority system may then send an access request 4030 which may request access to one or more data items stored by or obtainable by the data authority.”); and
in response to receiving the query, transmitting, by the one or more processors and to the second vehicle via the wireless communication link, the corresponding profile information for each of the occupants of the vehicle (Fig. 4, step 4060, para [0044], “In some examples, prior to sending the data streams 4060 the data authority may gather the sensor data. For example the data authority may query short range wireless sensors in driver's licenses, insurance cards, or the like.”.).
Regarding claim 3, Scholl in the combination teaches the method of claim 2,
wherein the second vehicle is a law enforcement vehicle (Fig. 2 police vehicle 2010), and
wherein the corresponding profile information for each of the occupants includes information regarding one or more of: an identity of one or more of the occupants, outstanding warrants of one or more of the occupants, firearms licenses of one or more of the occupants, or an arrest history of one or more of the occupants (para [0020], “For example, government issued identification cards such as a driver's license may contain near field communications (NFC) technologies such as Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags. The vehicle may be equipped with a Near Field Communication (NFC) reader that may extract an identification number from the identification card. The data authority system may then identify to the trusted authority system the identification numbers of the occupants of the vehicle.”. The data authority provides the identification number of the occupant to the police vehicle).
Regarding claim 4, Scholl in the combination teaches the method of claim 3, wherein verifying that the second vehicle is authorized to receive the corresponding profile information for each of the occupants further comprises: verifying, by the one or more processors, that the query is from law enforcement (para [0031], “The data authority may also utilize a certificate authority to obtain the public key of the trusted authority. For example, the data authority may utilize a URI provided by the trusted authority, a URI that comes preinstalled on the data authority (and which may be updatable), a license plate number of the trusted authority, or the like to request the public key of the trusted authority. The certificate authority may maintain a list of URIs which correspond to trusted public authorities. If an intruder impersonates the URI of a trusted authority, they will not be able to decrypt the communications from the data authority unless they also steal the private key of the trusted authority. Additionally, URIs not recognized as trusted authorities will not return a successful public key from the certificate authority. Thus, if messages from the trusted authority are successfully decrypted, the data authority may have a level of confidence that the trusted authority is a legitimate trusted authority (as opposed to an unauthorized eavesdropper).”. The data authority verifies the trusted authority via public key and private key).
Regarding claim 5, Scholl in the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the occupants of the vehicle include a driver of the vehicle and one or more passengers of the vehicle, and wherein the corresponding profile information for the occupants of the vehicle include driver profile information for the driver for the vehicle and corresponding passenger profile information for the one or more passengers of the vehicle (para [0020], “For example, government issued identification cards such as a driver's license may contain near field communications (NFC) technologies such as Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags. The vehicle may be equipped with a Near Field Communication (NFC) reader that may extract an identification number from the identification card. The data authority system may then identify to the trusted authority system the identification numbers of the occupants of the vehicle.”. The data authority identifies the driver and occupants via their ID cards.).
Regarding claim 11, recites a device that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, recites a device that performs the method of claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, recites a device that performs the method of claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, recites a device that performs the method of claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, recites a device that performs the method of claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, recites a computer readable medium for the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 6, 8-10, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholl (Pub. No.: US 2019/0069179 A1) in view of Raikar (Pub. No.: US 2025/0191411 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Barcia (Pat. No.: US 11,922,787 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Scholl in view of Raiker teaches the method of claim 5, but fails to teach further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors and based on the driver profile information, one or more conditions associated with the driver of the vehicle; determining, by the one or more processors, that the one or more conditions have been met; and in response to determining that the one or more conditions associated with the driver of the vehicle have been met, enabling, by the one or more processors, the driver to start the vehicle.
However, in the same field of vehicle, Barcia teaches determining, by the one or more processors and based on the driver profile information, one or more conditions associated with the driver of the vehicle (Fig. 3, Col. 3 line 21-27, “For example, the vehicle 300 may receive and/or observe the operational content on a smartphone 318 that may indicate one or more aspects of passenger status, e.g., plans, emotions, health, safety, etc.”);
determining, by the one or more processors, that the one or more conditions have been met; and
in response to determining that the one or more conditions associated with the driver of the vehicle have been met, enabling, by the one or more processors, the driver to start the vehicle (Col. 55 line 16-22, “In situations where the driver of the vehicle is found to be in a panic or distressed due to the health emergency of a passenger in the vehicle or driver himself/herself having a health emergency, an autonomous vehicle mode is initiated, and the system may also instruct an autonomous vehicle to perform certain actions.”. The vehicle starts autonomous driving if the driver is having a health issue.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scholl’s vehicle to further acquire the health condition of the occupants to improve safety.
Regarding claim 8, Scholl in view of Raiker teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the corresponding information associated with each of the plurality of digital vehicle keys include profile identifiers associated with the occupants of the vehicle, and wherein determining the corresponding profile information for each of the occupants of the vehicle further comprises: sending, by the one or more processors and to an external computing system, a request for the corresponding profile information for each of the occupants of the vehicle that includes the profile identifiers associated with the occupants of the vehicle; and in response to sending the request, receiving, by the one or more processors and from the external computing system, the corresponding profile information for each of the occupants of the vehicle.
However, in the same field of vehicle, Barcia teaches wherein the corresponding information associated with each of the plurality of digital vehicle keys include profile identifiers associated with the occupants of the vehicle, and wherein determining the corresponding profile information for each of the occupants of the vehicle (Fig. 3, Col. 3 line 21-27, “For example, the vehicle 300 may receive and/or observe the operational content on a smartphone 318 that may indicate one or more aspects of passenger status, e.g., plans, emotions, health, safety, etc.”) further comprises:
sending, by the one or more processors and to an external computing system, a request for the corresponding profile information for each of the occupants of the vehicle that includes the profile identifiers associated with the occupants of the vehicle; and
in response to sending the request, receiving, by the one or more processors and from the external computing system, the corresponding profile information for each of the occupants of the vehicle (Col. 41 line 28-33, “Passenger pre-health condition details can be either user provided details recorded in the vehicle system or medical service provider data from a cloud server. In an embodiment, the vehicle can collect the data, upon user's permission, and load the details in the vehicle system.”. The vehicle receives passenger health information from the cloud server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scholl’s vehicle to further acquire the health condition of the occupants to improve safety.
Regarding claim 9, Scholl in view of Raiker teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to expressly teach wherein the corresponding profile information for each of the occupants of the vehicle include medical records of the occupants of the vehicle, and wherein the second vehicle is an emergency services vehicle
However, in the same field of vehicle, Barcia teaches wherein the corresponding profile information for each of the occupants of the vehicle include medical records of the occupants of the vehicle (Col. 3 line 21-27, “For example, the vehicle 300 may receive and/or observe the operational content on a smartphone 318 that may indicate one or more aspects of passenger status, e.g., plans, emotions, health, safety, etc.” and Col. 51 line 8 - 32, “The training data sample may include, for example, the passenger's profile information 904, such as the age, gender, weight, height, ethnicity, demographic location, residence location, work location, past health conditions, data from health records and any other suitable data relating to the passenger. … When a vehicle passenger enters a vehicle, he or she is identified by the vehicle system, using an interior camera and a facial recognition algorithm or the like, a near-field mobile device identification methodology, a self-identification user interface, or the like.”. The mobile phone provides the occupant’s health records and profile to the vehicle), and wherein the second vehicle is an emergency services vehicle (Fig. 4A, ambulance 410, Fig. 4A, col 31 line 56-59, “Access medical records and provide them to medical professionals in the emergency care that was contacted. In an embodiment, the user would have to provide authorization before sharing the medical record.” and Fig. 5B, Col. 51 lie 32-52, “Vehicle passenger updates are then transmitted to the cloud system for maintaining the vehicle passenger ride lists, associating the appropriate public health profiles, and providing them to emergency responders accordingly.”. The vehicle provides a list of passengers and the associated profile to the emergency responder, such as to the ambulance 410. The message includes the name of the passengers, such as John Doe and James Doe).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scholl’s vehicle to further acquire the health condition the occupants and to provide the occupant’s health condition to the ambulance to improve safety.
Regarding claim 10, Scholl in view of Raiker teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to expressly teach further comprising:
wherein the advertisements indicate one or more of: a make and model of the vehicle, a color of the vehicle, or a license plate number of the vehicle.
However, in the same field of vehicle, Barcia teaches wherein the advertisements indicate one or more of: a make and model of the vehicle, a color of the vehicle, or a license plate number of the vehicle (Fig. 4B, Fig. 5B, Col. 41 line 18-28, “A sample emergency message to the nearby vehicle is shown in FIG. 5B where the fields comprise an event type or emergency type, passenger information, health parameters (from one or more sensors in the vehicle, including wearable devices), vehicle details, passenger seating details, passenger pre-health condition details, passenger allergy details, and emergency contact details. Vehicle details may further comprise type of vehicle, seating capacity, etc. Vehicle details may comprise, vehicle make, vehicle type such as a car, truck etc., vehicle number, vehicle owner, vehicle color, vehicle chassis id etc.”. The vehicle transmits a message to the nearby ambulance. The message includes vehicle color.).
Regarding claim 16, recites a device that performs the method of claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, recites a device that performs the method of claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, recites a device that performs the method of claim 9. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barcia (Pub. No.: US 2024/0153380 A1) teaches a vehicle-to-vehicle system that shares passenger information with a nearby vehicle.
Boyd (Pub. No.: US 2022/0014907 A1) teaches a stopped vehicle information remote retrieval method includes an emergency personnel or first responder vehicle (FRV) establishing a vehicle connection between an infotainment system of a stopped vehicle and the FRV.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, EST.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685