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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 3/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 remain pending in the application, claims 21 and 22 have been added. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the double patenting rejection previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 2/11/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under U.S.C 101, applicant asserts that the claims do not represent an abstract idea because “when Claim 1 is viewed "as a whole", Claim 1 is not directed to an abstract concept, but rather a transport computing system that controls when data is delivered to a device within the interior of the transport based on characteristics of a travel route and a current operating state of the transport.” The examiner disagrees with this characterization of the claims, as when takes as a whole the claims are not actually directed to a physical operation of either a transport or a computing deceive- the transport is merely a field of endeavor to which the abstract idea is being generally linked and the computing device represents simply performing the abstract idea using a generic computer. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea determination, a mental process of determining an order for data to be presented, determining the current state of a vehicle, and then determine whether it is currently safe for data to be presented to a device. The data transmission is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is simply transmitting or not transiting based on the result of the abstract idea determination.
Further regarding the rejection under U.S.C. 101, applicant states that even if the claim includes an abstract idea, it is not directed to the abstract idea instead is “directed to a practical application that prevents data delivery to an occupant device within a transport during potentially unsafe driving conditions of the transport”. The examiner considers this an incorrect description of the claims as a whole, as the stated benefit of the claim comes from the abstract idea and not the additional elements of the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.04(d), it is the additional elements to the abstract idea which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and in the present case it is the abstract idea determinations which the claim is directed to- the identification of the route characteristics and vehicle state and the determination of whether it is safe to pass along a data item. The transmission step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as this is simply the extra-solution step transmitting the results of the abstract idea. It the mental process which determines a safe condition to determine when the current operating state and the route conditions satisfy a safe consumption state, the transmitting step is not controlling timing or waiting but simply transmitting the abstract idea determination result. For this and the above reason, the rejection under U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
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.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 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. The claims recite “wherein the determining comprises determining that data comprises operational type data and the operational type data has priority over media data stored in the queue.” however the “operation type data” is indefinite in this claim as it depends from the as-amended independent claim. Per the applicant’s specification, the operation type data is data intended for use in the vehicle’s own onboard system, however the now amended claim recites only “data which is to be delivered to a device of an occupant within an interior of the transport” making eh dependent claims indefinite as this would mean the operational data is part of the data to be delivered to a device of an occupant- in contradiction to its meaning in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites a method, comprising:
identifying, by a processor of a transport, data which is to be delivered to a device of an occupant within an interior of the transport [abstract idea – mental process]
queuing data within a queue [abstract idea – mental process] of an internal memory of an onboard computer of the transport;
determining current characteristics of a travel route of the transport and a current operating state of the transport; [abstract idea – mental process]
determining that the transport currently comprises a route condition on the travel route which corresponds to a safe consumption state based on the characteristics of the travel route and the current operating state; [abstract idea – mental process]
and in response to the transport currently comprising a safe consumption state, transmitting the data to the device.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers limitations which may be performed in the human mind. Regarding the limitations of this claim, the limitations “identifying, … data which is to be delivered to a device of an occupant within an interior of the transport” in the context of this claim encompass a person a person determining that data goes to a recipient. The limitations “queuing data within a queue” in the context of this claim encompass a person determining an order of providing data. The limitations “determining current characteristics of a travel route of the transport and a current operating state of the transport;” in the context of this claim encompass a person determining current characteristics of a travel route of the transport and the current operating state of the transport. The limitations “determining that the transport currently comprises a route condition on the travel route which corresponds to a safe consumption state based on the characteristics of the travel route and the current operating state;” in the context of this claim encompass a person determining that the transport currently comprises a route condition on the travel route which corresponds to a safe consumption state based on the characteristics of the travel route and the current operating state. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
identifying, by a processor of a transport, [performing the abstract idea using a generic computer] data which is to be delivered to a device of an occupant within an interior of the transport [abstract idea – mental process]
queuing data within a queue [abstract idea – mental process] of an internal memory of an onboard computer of the transport; [performing the abstract idea using a generic computer]
determining current characteristics of a travel route of the transport and a current operating state of the transport; [abstract idea – mental process]
determining that the transport currently comprises a route condition on the travel route which corresponds to a safe consumption state based on the characteristics of the travel route and the current operating state; [abstract idea – mental process]
and in response to the transport currently comprising a safe consumption state, transmitting the data to the device. [insignificant extra-solution activity]
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations “by a processor of a transport” and “of an internal memory of an onboard computer of the transport” are in the context of this claims recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of identifying and queuing data) The limitation to “and in response to the transport currently comprising a safe consumption state, transmitting the data to the device” is a mere post-solution activity of transmitting the results of an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible
Dependent claims 2-5, 21, and 22 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Independent Claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative Claim 1 above, as the claim is
substantially identical to the examined claims with only minor changes to the limitations; being a transport comprising processors configured to carry out the method of Claim 1, changes which do not affect the analysis as demonstrated above.
Dependent claims 9-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 9-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Independent Claim 8.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative Claim 1 above, as the claim is
substantially identical to the examined claims with only minor changes to the limitations; being a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, that when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform method of Claim 1, changes which do not affect the analysis as demonstrated above.
Dependent claims 16-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 16-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Independent Claim 15.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dar (US 20190036857), herein after referred to as Dar, in view of Chen (US 20160294707), herein after referred to as Chen.
Regarding Claim 1, Dar discloses:
identifying, ... data which is to be delivered to a device of an occupant within an interior of the transport (see at least [0015] “When the network receives a message for a destination mobile device, the disclosed system retrieves or accesses the most recent status information for the destination mobile device. In one embodiment, a SMSC transmits a send routing information (SRI-SM) request to the HLR to retrieve the (1) MSC location, (2) driving status (e.g., the isDriving field), and/or (3) proximity information of the destination mobile device.”)
queuing data within a queue (see at least [0015] “ the system may block message delivery to the recipient by placing the message in a holding queue rather than forwarding the message to the destination mobile device”)
determining current characteristics of a travel route of the transport and a current operating state of the transport; (see at least [0024] “Alternatively, the device may indicate that the device is in motion only if the device is traveling at a speed above a predetermined threshold value that may be set by a telecommunications network provider. In some embodiments, the system is configured to apply different motion threshold values in various different operating conditions. For example, the motion threshold may be lower or surface roads, in construction zones, in heavier traffic conditions, or during inclement weather conditions. Similarly, the motion threshold value may be may be higher when the mobile device is traveling on an interstate highway or in lighter traffic conditions.")
determining that the transport currently comprises a route condition on the travel route which corresponds to a safe consumption state based on the characteristics of the travel route and the current operating state; (see at least [0025] “At step 310, if the mobile device determines that the mobile device is not in motion or that the mobile device is moving at a speed that is below a threshold value, the system proceeds to step 325 and sets a driving status indicator—such as an “isDriving” field—to a value of zero or false.”)
and in response to the transport currently comprising a safe consumption state, transmitting the data to the device. (see at least [0015] “a messaging application server (AS) transmits a user data request (UDR) or subscriber notification request (SNR) to retrieve the MSC location, driving status (e.g., the isDriving field), and/or proximity information of the destination mobile device. After the system retrieves the most recent status information for the destination mobile device, the system determines whether to deliver the message to the destination mobile device or block the message.”)
Dar does not explicitly disclose:
by a processor of a transport
of an internal memory of an onboard computer of the transport;
In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses:
by a processor of a transport (see at least [Fig. 2] [0033] “In FIG. 2, the processor 204 includes a wireless connection module 214 and a prioritization module 216 that facilitate managing electronic devices connections with the vehicle 102.”)
of an internal memory of an onboard computer of the transport; (see at least [Fig. 2] [0033] “the VCD 202 can include various components such as a processor 204, a memory 206,”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle passenger communications field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dar to perform the actions using a vehicle computer rather than external server, as taught by Chen to facilitate and manage data transmission between the vehicle and user devices, including data received from external network [0036].
Regarding Claim 4, modified Dar discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Dar does not explicitly disclose:
comprising determining an elevated level of importance assigned to a portion of the data;
and forwarding the portion of data prior to forwarding any other portion of the data
In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses:
comprising determining an elevated level of importance assigned to a portion of the data; (see at least [0069] “identifying the data type associated with the data transmission request, and updating the priority assigned to each of the electronic devices based on the data type associated with the data transmission request.”)
and forwarding the portion of data prior to forwarding any other portion of the data (see at least [0069] “ Based on the identification of the data type and the priority rules set 236 stored at the data storage device 208, the prioritization module can update the priority assigned to each of the electronic devices.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle passenger communications field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dar to determine elevated importance of a portion oof data and forward it first, as taught by Chen to facilitate and manage data transmission between the vehicle and user devices by prioritizing certain devices, and changing the priority of each device based on the data type and rules regarding data priority [0069].
Regarding Claim 5, modified Dar discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Dar does not explicitly disclose:
receiving, by the processor of the transport that is travelling along the travel route, the data from one or more external servers that are wirelessly connected to the transport by a wireless computer network.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses:
receiving, by the processor of the transport that is travelling along the travel route, the data from one or more external servers that are wirelessly connected to the transport by a wireless computer network. (see at least [0035] “The communication interface 210 can maintain a vehicle network between the VCD 202, the electronic device 222, the network 230 and other components of the vehicle 102." [0036] "The network serves as a communication medium to various remote devices (e.g., databases, web servers, remote servers, application servers, intermediary servers," [0071] "As shown in Table 3, an exemplary vehicle context can include normal driving”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle passenger communications field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dar to determine elevated importance of a portion oof data and forward it first, as taught by Chen to facilitate and manage data transmission between the vehicle and user devices by prioritizing certain devices, wherein the vehicle is connected to one or more external servers [0035] during driving alone the route [0071].
Regarding Claim 8, Dar discloses:
identify data which is to be delivered to a device of an occupant within an interior of the transport (see at least [0015] “When the network receives a message for a destination mobile device, the disclosed system retrieves or accesses the most recent status information for the destination mobile device. In one embodiment, a SMSC transmits a send routing information (SRI-SM) request to the HLR to retrieve the (1) MSC location, (2) driving status (e.g., the isDriving field), and/or (3) proximity information of the destination mobile device.”)
queue data within a queue (see at least [0015] “ the system may block message delivery to the recipient by placing the message in a holding queue rather than forwarding the message to the destination mobile device”)
determine current characteristics of a travel route of the transport and a current operating state of the transport; (see at least [0024] “Alternatively, the device may indicate that the device is in motion only if the device is traveling at a speed above a predetermined threshold value that may be set by a telecommunications network provider. In some embodiments, the system is configured to apply different motion threshold values in various different operating conditions. For example, the motion threshold may be lower or surface roads, in construction zones, in heavier traffic conditions, or during inclement weather conditions. Similarly, the motion threshold value may be may be higher when the mobile device is traveling on an interstate highway or in lighter traffic conditions.")
determine that the transport currently comprises a route condition on the travel route which corresponds to a safe consumption state based on the characteristics of the travel route and the current operating state; (see at least [0025] “At step 310, if the mobile device determines that the mobile device is not in motion or that the mobile device is moving at a speed that is below a threshold value, the system proceeds to step 325 and sets a driving status indicator—such as an “isDriving” field—to a value of zero or false.”)
and in response to the transport currently comprising a safe consumption state, transmit the data to the device. (see at least [0015] “a messaging application server (AS) transmits a user data request (UDR) or subscriber notification request (SNR) to retrieve the MSC location, driving status (e.g., the isDriving field), and/or proximity information of the destination mobile device. After the system retrieves the most recent status information for the destination mobile device, the system determines whether to deliver the message to the destination mobile device or block the message.”)
Dar does not explicitly disclose:
a processor [of a transport]
of an internal memory of an onboard computer of the transport;
In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses:
a processor (see at least [Fig. 2] [0033] “In FIG. 2, the processor 204 includes a wireless connection module 214 and a prioritization module 216 that facilitate managing electronic devices connections with the vehicle 102.”)
of an internal memory of an onboard computer of the transport; (see at least [Fig. 2] [0033] “the VCD 202 can include various components such as a processor 204, a memory 206,”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle passenger communications field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dar to perform the actions using a vehicle computer rather than external server, as taught by Chen to facilitate and manage data transmission between the vehicle and user devices, including data received from external network [0036].
Regarding Claim 11, modified Dar discloses the limitations of Claim 8, but Dar does not explicitly disclose:
determine an elevated level of importance assigned to a portion of the data;
and forward the portion of data prior to forwarding any other portion of the data
In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses:
determine an elevated level of importance assigned to a portion of the data; (see at least [0069] “identifying the data type associated with the data transmission request, and updating the priority assigned to each of the electronic devices based on the data type associated with the data transmission request.”)
and forward the portion of data prior to forwarding any other portion of the data (see at least [0069] “ Based on the identification of the data type and the priority rules set 236 stored at the data storage device 208, the prioritization module can update the priority assigned to each of the electronic devices.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle passenger communications field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dar to determine elevated importance of a portion oof data and forward it first, as taught by Chen to facilitate and manage data transmission between the vehicle and user devices by prioritizing certain devices, and changing the priority of each device based on the data type and rules regarding data priority [0069].
Regarding Claim 12, modified Dar discloses the limitations of Claim 8, but Dar does not explicitly disclose:
receive the data from one or more external servers that are wirelessly connected to the transport by a wireless computer network.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses:
receive the data from one or more external servers that are wirelessly connected to the transport by a wireless computer network. (see at least [0035] “The communication interface 210 can maintain a vehicle network between the VCD 202, the electronic device 222, the network 230 and other components of the vehicle 102." [0036] "The network serves as a communication medium to various remote devices (e.g., databases, web servers, remote servers, application servers, intermediary servers," [0071] "As shown in Table 3, an exemplary vehicle context can include normal driving”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle passenger communications field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dar to determine elevated importance of a portion oof data and forward it first, as taught by Chen to facilitate and manage data transmission between the vehicle and user devices by prioritizing certain devices, wherein the vehicle is connected to one or more external servers [0035] during driving alone the route [0071].
Regarding Claim 15, Dar discloses:
identifying data which is to be delivered to a device of an occupant within an interior of the transport (see at least [0015] “When the network receives a message for a destination mobile device, the disclosed system retrieves or accesses the most recent status information for the destination mobile device. In one embodiment, a SMSC transmits a send routing information (SRI-SM) request to the HLR to retrieve the (1) MSC location, (2) driving status (e.g., the isDriving field), and/or (3) proximity information of the destination mobile device.”)
queuing data within a queue (see at least [0015] “ the system may block message delivery to the recipient by placing the message in a holding queue rather than forwarding the message to the destination mobile device”)
determining current characteristics of a travel route of the transport and a current operating state of the transport; (see at least [0024] “Alternatively, the device may indicate that the device is in motion only if the device is traveling at a speed above a predetermined threshold value that may be set by a telecommunications network provider. In some embodiments, the system is configured to apply different motion threshold values in various different operating conditions. For example, the motion threshold may be lower or surface roads, in construction zones, in heavier traffic conditions, or during inclement weather conditions. Similarly, the motion threshold value may be may be higher when the mobile device is traveling on an interstate highway or in lighter traffic conditions.")
determining that the transport currently comprises a route condition on the travel route which corresponds to a safe consumption state based on the characteristics of the travel route and the current operating state; (see at least [0025] “At step 310, if the mobile device determines that the mobile device is not in motion or that the mobile device is moving at a speed that is below a threshold value, the system proceeds to step 325 and sets a driving status indicator—such as an “isDriving” field—to a value of zero or false.”)
and in response to the transport currently comprising a safe consumption state, transmitting the data to the device. (see at least [0015] “a messaging application server (AS) transmits a user data request (UDR) or subscriber notification request (SNR) to retrieve the MSC location, driving status (e.g., the isDriving field), and/or proximity information of the destination mobile device. After the system retrieves the most recent status information for the destination mobile device, the system determines whether to deliver the message to the destination mobile device or block the message.”)
Dar does not explicitly disclose:
of an internal memory of an onboard computer of the transport;
In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses:
of an internal memory of an onboard computer of the transport; (see at least [Fig. 2] [0033] “the VCD 202 can include various components such as a processor 204, a memory 206,”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle passenger communications field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dar to perform the actions using a vehicle computer rather than external server, as taught by Chen to facilitate and manage data transmission between the vehicle and user devices, including data received from external network [0036].
Regarding Claim 18, modified Dar discloses the limitations of Claim 15, but Dar does not explicitly disclose:
determining an elevated level of importance assigned to a portion of the data;
and forwarding the portion of data prior to forwarding any other portion of the data
In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses:
determining an elevated level of importance assigned to a portion of the data; (see at least [0069] “identifying the data type associated with the data transmission request, and updating the priority assigned to each of the electronic devices based on the data type associated with the data transmission request.”)
and forwarding the portion of data prior to forwarding any other portion of the data (see at least [0069] “ Based on the identification of the data type and the priority rules set 236 stored at the data storage device 208, the prioritization module can update the priority assigned to each of the electronic devices.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle passenger communications field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dar to determine elevated importance of a portion oof data and forward it first, as taught by Chen to facilitate and manage data transmission between the vehicle and user devices by prioritizing certain devices, and changing the priority of each device based on the data type and rules regarding data priority [0069].
Regarding Claim 19, modified Dar discloses the limitations of Claim 15, but Dar does not explicitly disclose:
receiving the data from one or more external servers that are wirelessly connected to the transport by a wireless computer network.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses:
receiving the data from one or more external servers that are wirelessly connected to the transport by a wireless computer network. (see at least [0035] “The communication interface 210 can maintain a vehicle network between the VCD 202, the electronic device 222, the network 230 and other components of the vehicle 102." [0036] "The network serves as a communication medium to various remote devices (e.g., databases, web servers, remote servers, application servers, intermediary servers," [0071] "As shown in Table 3, an exemplary vehicle context can include normal driving”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle passenger communications field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dar to determine elevated importance of a portion oof data and forward it first, as taught by Chen to facilitate and manage data transmission between the vehicle and user devices by prioritizing certain devices, wherein the vehicle is connected to one or more external servers [0035] during driving alone the route [0071].
Regarding Claim 21, modified Dar discloses the limitations of Claim 21, and Dar further discloses:
wherein the determining the route condition corresponds to the safe consumption state comprises detecting that the transport is stopped or that a speed of the transport is below a threshold based on vehicle sensor data. (see at least [0022] “if the mobile device is stopped for a longer period of time (e.g., 5 minutes or more) because the car is parked in a parking lot, then the system may then update the isDriving field to TRUE." [0030] "in instances where the isDriving field indicates that the destination mobile device is not in motion, the disclosed system instead forwards the message to the destination device”)
Regarding Claim 22, modified Dar discloses the limitations of Claim 21, and Dar further discloses:
wherein determining the current characteristics of the travel route comprises receiving traffic control information associated with the travel route and determining the safe consumption state based on the traffic control information. (see at least [0024] “the motion threshold may be lower or surface roads, in construction zones, in heavier traffic conditions, or during inclement weather conditions. Similarly, the motion threshold value may be may be higher when the mobile device is traveling on an interstate highway or in lighter traffic conditions.”)
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dar (US 20190036857), herein after referred to as Dar, in view of Chen (US 20160294707), herein after referred to as Chen, and Wiles (US 20190344681), herein after referred to as Wiles.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Dar discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Dar does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the determining comprises determining that data comprises operational type data
and the operational type data has priority over media data stored in the queue.
In the same field of endeavor, Wiles discloses:
wherein the determining comprises determining that data comprises operational type data (see at least [0102] “Metadata provided by the computer system 211, which describes the data awaiting transfer, may indicate the amount of data to be transferred in total, or the amount of data in each data file or set of data awaiting transfer.”)
and the operational type data has priority over media data stored in the queue. (see at least [0112] “it may assign a higher priority rating to data files comprising software updates than a priority rating it assigns to media files.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they all three represent inventions in the vehicle passenger telecommunications field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of combined Dar and Chen to determine that data comprises operational type data and the operational type data has priority over media data stored in the queue, as taught by Wiles to prioritize vehicle software updates over passenger media [0112].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Dar discloses the limitations of Claim 8, but Dar does not explicitly disclose:
determine that data comprises operational type data
and the operational type data has priority over media data stored in the queue.
In the same field of endeavor, Wiles discloses:
determine that data comprises operational type data (see at least [0102] “Metadata provided by the computer system 211, which describes the data awaiting transfer, may indicate the amount of data to be transferred in total, or the amount of data in each data file or set of data awaiting transfer.”)
and the operational type data has priority over media data stored in the queue. (see at least [0112] “it may assign a higher priority rating to data files comprising software updates than a priority rating it assigns to media files.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they all three represent inventions in the vehicle passenger telecommunications field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of combined Dar and Chen to determine that data comprises operational type data and the operational type data has priority over media data stored in the queue, as taught by Wiles to prioritize vehicle software updates over passenger media [0112].
Regarding Claim 16, modified Dar discloses the limitations of Claim 15, but Dar does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the determining comprises determining that data comprises operational type data
and the operational type data has priority over media data stored in the queue.
In the same field of endeavor, Wiles discloses:
wherein the determining comprises determining that data comprises operational type data (see at least [0102] “Metadata provided by the computer system 211, which describes the data awaiting transfer, may indicate the amount of data to be transferred in total, or the amount of data in each data file or set of data awaiting transfer.”)
and the operational type data has priority over media data stored in the queue. (see at least [0112] “it may assign a higher priority rating to data files comprising software updates than a priority rating it assigns to media files.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they all three represent inventions in the vehicle passenger telecommunications field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of combined Dar and Chen to determine that data comprises operational type data and the operational type data has priority over media data stored in the queue, as taught by Wiles to prioritize vehicle software updates over passenger media [0112].
Claims 3, 10, and 17are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dar (US 20190036857), herein after referred to as Dar, in view of Chen (US 20160294707), herein after referred to as Chen, and Schwarz (US 20140304053), herein after referred to as Schwarz
Regarding Claim 3, modified Dar discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Dar does not explicitly disclose:
forwarding the data to two or more devices in the transport based on characteristics of two or more occupants corresponding to the two or more devices being similar.
In the same field of endeavor, Schwarz makes obvious
forwarding the data to two or more devices in the transport based on characteristics of two or more occupants corresponding to the two or more devices being similar. (see at least [0036] “For example, the advertisements selected and provided for an adult driver of the automobile 112 may be different than the advertisements selected and provided for a teenage driver of the same automobile 112," [0048] "multiple individuals may be identified as being within the automobile. Thus, in these further embodiments, the advertisements provided may be directed to occupants other than the driver. In the particular case of each occupant having a separate portable wireless device (such as each occupant having their own smart phone), the data center 100 may send different advertisements to each occupant, the advertisements selected as discussed above.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle passenger telecommunications field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dar to forward the data to two or more devices in the transport based on characteristics of two or more occupants corresponding to the two or more devices being similar, as is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Schwarz discloses a separate advertisement for adults and teens, and a person with ordinary skill would understand the adults and teens therefore receive the same advertisement as the implication is that they would not receive different ads otherwise. Therefore, in discussing sending separate advertisements to different passengers, a person with ordinary skill would know that similar passengers will receive the same data.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Dar discloses the limitations of Claim 8, but Dar does not explicitly disclose:
forward the data to two or more devices in the transport based on characteristics of two or more occupants corresponding to the two or more devices being similar.
In the same field of endeavor, Schwarz makes obvious
forward the data to two or more devices in the transport based on characteristics of two or more occupants corresponding to the two or more devices being similar. (see at least [0036] “For example, the advertisements selected and provided for an adult driver of the automobile 112 may be different than the advertisements selected and provided for a teenage driver of the same automobile 112," [0048] "multiple individuals may be identified as being within the automobile. Thus, in these further embodiments, the advertisements provided may be directed to occupants other than the driver. In the particular case of each occupant having a separate portable wireless device (such as each occupant having their own smart phone), the data center 100 may send different advertisements to each occupant, the advertisements selected as discussed above.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle passenger telecommunications field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dar to forward the data to two or more devices in the transport based on characteristics of two or more occupants corresponding to the two or more devices being similar, as is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Schwarz discloses a separate advertisement for adults and teens, and a person with ordinary skill would understand the adults and teens therefore receive the same advertisement as the implication is that they would not receive different ads otherwise. Therefore, in discussing sending separate advertisements to different passengers, a person with ordinary skill would know that similar passengers will receive the same data.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Dar discloses the limitations of Claim 15, but Dar does not explicitly disclose:
forwarding the data to two or more devices in the transport based on characteristics of two or more occupants corresponding to the two or more devices being similar.
In the same field of endeavor, Schwarz makes obvious
forwarding the data to two or more devices in the transport based on characteristics of two or more occupants corresponding to the two or more devices being similar. (see at least [0036] “For example, the advertisements selected and provided for an adult driver of the automobile 112 may be different than the advertisements selected and provided for a teenage driver of the same automobile 112," [0048] "multiple individuals may be identified as being within the automobile. Thus, in these further embodiments, the advertisements provided may be directed to occupants other than the driver. In the particular case of each occupant having a separate portable wireless device (such as each occupant having their own smart phone), the data center 100 may send different advertisements to each occupant, the advertisements selected as discussed above.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle passenger telecommunications field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dar to forward the data to two or more devices in the transport based on characteristics of two or more occupants corresponding to the two or more devices being similar, as is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Schwarz discloses a separate advertisement for adults and teens, and a person with ordinary skill would understand the adults and teens therefore receive the same advertisement as the implication is that they would not receive different ads otherwise. Therefore, in discussing sending separate advertisements to different passengers, a person with ordinary skill would know that similar passengers will receive the same data.
Conclusion
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 JACOB D UNDERBAKKE whose telephone number is (571)272-6657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/JACOB DANIEL UNDERBAKKE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights