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 Objections
Claims 2-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-13, line 1 recites “The power system for a digital license plate of claim 1”. It is recommended to amend to recite “The power system for [[a]] the digital license plate of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the result" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 14.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a power system for a digital license plate comprising: a sensor; storage memory; and a battery status monitor operable only during operation of the digital license plate, the battery status monitor comprising an analog to digital converter (ADC) connected to a battery to provide status data to a processor in the digital license plate, with status data being stored in the storage memory, and with a determination of battery lifetime being made at least in part using the status data and input from the sensor.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a system; therefore, it is a machine
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of a determination of battery lifetime being made at least in part using the status data and input from the sensor. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, a determination of battery lifetime being made at least in part using the status data and input from the sensor can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: battery status monitor
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of implementing a determination of battery lifetime are performed: a sensor; storage memory
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining battery lifetime in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform a determination of battery lifetime. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: a battery status monitor operable only during operation of the digital license plate, the battery status monitor comprising an analog to digital converter (ADC) connected to a battery to provide status data to a processor in the digital license plate, with status data being stored in the storage memory
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining battery lifetime in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein operation states include an off state, a sleep state, a wake state, and a semi-wake state, with battery lifetime determination only being made in a wake state.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein operation states changes are triggered in response to detected vehicle voltage.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein operation states are triggered in response to vehicle motion.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein operation states are triggered in response to wireless connection status.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein operation states are provided to a remote device over a wireless connection.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein operation states are triggered in response to location or location changes.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the sensor is an external temperature sensor.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein state changes are triggered in response to a real time clock (RTC).”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 10 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein allowed operational states are determined at least in part by determined battery lifetime.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein frequency of operational states are determined at least in part by determined battery lifetime.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 12 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein activation of electronic subsystems for the digital license plate are determined at least in part by determined battery lifetime.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 13 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising a battery health lookup table that uses external temperature sensor data and ADC data to determine battery health.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites a method for measuring battery health in a digital license plate, comprising the steps of in response to a sensor triggered operational state that activates the digital license plate; waking a processor, memory, and ADC connection to a battery; reading battery voltage through the ADC connection and storing the result in memory; and using the processor to determine battery health at least in part using the read battery voltage.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of determine battery health at least in part using the read battery voltage. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, a determination of battery health at least in part using the read battery voltage can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: a processor
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining battery lifetime in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform a determination of battery lifetime. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: in response to a sensor triggered operational state that activates the digital license plate; waking a processor, memory, and ADC connection to a battery; reading battery voltage through the ADC connection and storing the result in memory
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining battery lifetime in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 15 depends on claim 14, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising the steps of providing a temperature sensor; and determining battery health using temperature data and read battery voltage.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 16 depends on claim 14, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising the step of providing battery health data to a remote device over a wireless connection.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 17 depends on claim 14, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising the step of triggering an operational state using at least one of an inertial measuring unit (IMU), real time clock (RTC), and wireless connection system.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mason; Todd Christopher et al. (US Publication #US 20180186311 A1; hereinafter Mason).
Regarding claim 1, Mason teaches
A power system for a digital license plate (abstract) comprising:
a sensor (par.33 teaches multiple sensors);
storage memory (par.33 teaches storage device #150; par.52 teaches memory module); and
a battery status monitor (par.79 “A battery fuel gauge module 814 is configured to monitor the battery capacity on battery 812.”) operable only during operation of the digital license plate (par.36 “a power source that is rechargeable and coupled to a power source of the vehicle 10 that stores power from the vehicle 10 while the vehicle 10 is in operation and/or the ignition of the vehicle 10 is on.”), the battery status monitor comprising an analog to digital converter (ADC) (par.130 “a digital license plate is equipped with an Analog to digital converter (ADC)”) connected to a battery (par.82 teaches converter connected to battery) to provide status data (par.116 teaches status data as vehicle generated data) to a processor (processor 130) in the digital license plate, with status data being stored in the storage memory (par.47 “content on the content database is accessed by the processor 130 via the communication device 140 and stored on the storage device 150.”), and with a determination of battery lifetime being made at least in part using the status data and input from the sensor (par.87 teaches determination of battery lifetime using status data and data from sensors).
Regarding claim 2, Mason teaches the power system for a digital license plate of claim 1, wherein operation states include an off state (par.53 “the vehicle powered off state”), a sleep state (par.71 teaches sleep state), a wake state (par.61 teaches wake state), and a semi-wake state (par.71 teaches semi-wake state), with battery lifetime determination only being made in a wake state (par.72 teaches determination being made in a wake state).
Regarding claim 3, Mason teaches the power system for a digital license plate of claim 1, wherein operation states changes are triggered in response to detected vehicle voltage (par.63 teaches “Transitions between states are initiated in response to battery and vehicle power levels”).
Regarding claim 4, Mason teaches the power system for a digital license plate of claim 1, wherein operation states are triggered in response to vehicle motion (par.63 teaches “Transitions between states are initiated in response to battery and vehicle power levels”).
Regarding claim 5, Mason teaches the power system for a digital license plate of claim 1, wherein operation states are triggered in response to wireless connection status (par.63 “Transitions between states are initiated in response to battery and vehicle power levels, sensed capacitive touch, an accelerometer event (motion sensed), a cable disconnect (vehicle power disconnected), incoming SMS message (received via the modem), a timer signal, or infrared motion detection.”).
Regarding claim 6, Mason teaches the power system for a digital license plate of claim 1, wherein operation states are provided to a remote device over a wireless connection (par.62 “used to implement wireless connectivity (e.g. 3G or 4G cell service) to a remote server”).
Regarding claim 7, Mason teaches the power system for a digital license plate of claim 1, wherein operation states are triggered in response to location or location changes (par.132).
Regarding claim 8, Mason teaches the power system for a digital license plate of claim 1, wherein the sensor is an external temperature sensor (par.39 discloses an infrared sensor
an infrared (IR) sensor is considered a type of temperature sensor, specifically a non-contact (or remote) temperature sensor. It calculates an object's surface temperature by detecting the infrared radiation (heat) emitted by that object, making it ideal for measuring moving, hazardous, or extremely hot surfaces without physical contact.).
Regarding claim 9, Mason teaches the power system for a digital license plate of claim 1, wherein state changes are triggered in response to a real time clock (RTC) (par.130).
Regarding claim 10, Mason teaches the power system for a digital license plate of claim 1, wherein allowed operational states are determined at least in part by determined battery lifetime (par.122).
Regarding claim 11, Mason teaches the power system for a digital license plate of claim 1, wherein frequency of operational states are determined at least in part by determined battery lifetime (par.76; transitions between states can be interpreted as or equal to the frequency of the states themselves).
Regarding claim 12, Mason teaches the power system for a digital license plate of claim 1, wherein activation of electronic subsystems for the digital license plate are determined at least in part by determined battery lifetime (par.50 teaches activation of sub-systems).
Regarding claim 13, Mason teaches the power system for a digital license plate of claim 1, further comprising a battery health lookup table that uses external temperature sensor data and ADC data to determine battery health (par.75 teaches a battery lookup table and how it affects system components (sensor data and ADC data), thus shows their use).
Regarding claim 14, Mason teaches
A method for measuring battery health in a digital license plate (abstract), comprising the steps of
in response to a sensor triggered operational state that activates the digital license plate (par.51 teaches sensor triggered operational state that activates the digital license plate);
waking a processor (par.33 processor #130), memory (par.33 storage device #150; par.95 teaches memory 1220), and ADC connection (par.130 teaches ADC connection to a battery) to a battery (par.36 teaches battery);
reading battery voltage through the ADC connection (par.130 “voltage as measured and converted by the ADC to digital form can be used by the digital license plate to determine when a vehicle has shifted from a Parked mode with a normal 12.6-volt state, to an operation mode with a normal 13.7-volt state.”) and storing the result in memory (par.48 “this data could be collected and/or stored by the processor 130”); and
using the processor to determine battery health at least in part using the read battery voltage (par.87).
Regarding claim 15, Mason teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising the steps of
providing a temperature sensor (par.39 discloses an infrared sensor
an infrared (IR) sensor is considered a type of temperature sensor, specifically a non-contact (or remote) temperature sensor. It calculates an object's surface temperature by detecting the infrared radiation (heat) emitted by that object, making it ideal for measuring moving, hazardous, or extremely hot surfaces without physical contact; par.116 implicitly teaches a temperature sensor through the vehicle generated data); and
determining battery health using temperature data (par.166 teaches determining digital license plate battery status using vehicle generated data which include temperature data) and read battery voltage (par.116 “voltage levels”).
Regarding claim 16, Mason teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising the step of providing battery health data to a remote device over a wireless connection (par.62 “used to implement wireless connectivity (e.g. 3G or 4G cell service) to a remote server”).
Regarding claim 17, Mason teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising the step of triggering an operational state using at least one of an inertial measuring unit (IMU), real time clock (RTC) (par.130), and wireless connection system (par.63 “Transitions between states are initiated in response to battery and vehicle power levels, sensed capacitive touch, an accelerometer event (motion sensed), a cable disconnect (vehicle power disconnected), incoming SMS message (received via the modem), a timer signal, or infrared motion detection.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20050223244 A1; Sinai, David is a Device, system and method for reduced power consumption.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858