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 .
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed on March 02, 2026 has been entered. Claims 11 and 13 have been
amended. The remaining claims are in original or previously presented form. Therefore, claims 11-20 are pending in the application.
Applicant's arguments, see applicant’s Remarks for U.S.C. § 102, filed on 04/02/2026 regarding
U.S.C. § 102 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5, applicant asserts than Dittrich fails to disclose ascertaining the maximum capacity of the ring memory.
However, Dittrich’s awareness of a memory reaching its maximum storage capacity to overwrite oldest event data with newest event data indicates its capability to determine available or maximum storage capacity of the memory.(Dittrich, paragraph 12, the volatile system memory for temporary storage of the data can be a ring buffer memory that erases the oldest stored data when new input data must be stored by overwriting. Dittrich, paragraph 19, This predetermined maximum amount of data can correspond to the storage capacity of the non-volatile memory or to the storage capacity of a part of said non-volatile memory that is allocated for event data storage. When the amount of data stored in the non-volatile memory has reached this maximum amount, the oldest event data is overwritten with the newest event data. Dittrich, paragraph 59, New event data can be added to the already stored event data using available memory in the non-volatile memory 123).
On page 5, applicant states that Dittrich discloses storing to the extent the copying of data from the volatile memory 112 to the non-volatile memory 113, and is alleged as corresponding to selecting data to be stored.Such reading fails because the purportedly selected data is not selected to be stored in the ring memory, but rather is selected to be stored from the ring memory 112 to the non-volatile memory 113.
However, new reference Letner teaches selectively storing necessary data according to the capacity of buffer (ring) memory, that indicates a storing process based on maximum ring/buffer storage capacity. (Letner, paragraph 57, programming the trace buffer memory controller with triggers to cause the trace buffer memory to capture selected data from data flowing through the optical backplane, providing access to the captured data, optionally providing means to offload the captured data when the trace buffer memory is nearing capacity or when data is needed, Letner, paragraph 49, since the trace buffer memory (208) has finite storage capacity, data capture may be limited to necessary data only. In an exemplary scenario, a start-stop signal may initiate the start of data capture and may also stop data capture in order to limit data storage in the trace buffer)
On page 5, applicant states it is also not the case that the data to be stored is selected from the data available. And the alleged data to be stored is the data to be copied from the volatile memory 112 to the non-volatile memory 113. But the data in the volatile memory 112 is not selected from the data already in the non-volatile memory 113.
However new reference Letner teaches capturing new event data that is not already in the volatile memory or non-volatile memory. (Letner, paragraph 40, Accordingly triggers are used to signal a stop to the reception of data and to capture selected portions of the data when an event of interest is detected. Letner, paragraph 49, since the trace buffer memory (208) has finite storage capacity, data capture may be limited to necessary data only. In an exemplary scenario, a start-stop signal may initiate the start of data capture and may also stop data capture in order to limit data storage in the trace buffer).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one claim limitation that use the word “means” and is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
Claim 17 recites “ a system for data processing, comprising means for carrying out the computer-implemented method of claim 11” has been interpreted under 112(f) as means plus function language because the claim recites “…comprising means…” plus function language “…for carrying out the computer-implemented method of claim 11” without reciting any specific structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11,12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dittrich (US 20210248842 A1) in view of Letner (US 20120113822 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Dittrich teaches a computer-implemented method for designing a data collection campaign for a motor vehicle(Dittrich, paragraph 35, an example [of] data logging system 100 for collecting and storing input data 300. The data logging system 100 may equip an automotive vehicle), comprising:
ascertaining, by a data processing device of the motor vehicle:
a maximum storage capacity of a ring memory of the motor vehicle(Dittrich’s awareness of a memory reaching its maximum storage capacity to overwrite oldest event data with newest event data indicates its capability to determine available or maximum storage capacity of the memory. Dittrich, paragraph 12, the volatile system memory for temporary storage of the data can be a ring buffer memory that erases the oldest stored data when new input data must be stored by overwriting. Dittrich, paragraph 19, This predetermined maximum amount of data can correspond to the storage capacity of the non-volatile memory or to the storage capacity of a part of said non-volatile memory that is allocated for event data storage. Dittrich, paragraph 59, New event data can be added to the already stored event data using available memory in the non-volatile memory 123 ),
information required to achieve a predefined aim of the data collection campaign(Dittrich discloses initiating data gathering when a vehicle encounters a crashing event that records data(information) related to the event. Dittrich’s collection of data related to the crash event corresponds to a predefined aim of its data collecting campaign. Dittrich, paragraph 2, a processing unit that collects input data and a storage device for storing event data, that is, input data related to a trigger event. Dittrich, paragraph 5, When a trigger event like a crash occurs at “time zero to” or “start time” (the time of the trigger event), the data logging system is required to record event data ),
data available in the motor vehicle(Event data already stored in the memory is assumed to be an available data or logged data. Dittrich, paragraph 6, computing components, or any other event that is to be investigated by analyzing logged data. Dittrich, paragraph 59, New event data can be added to the already stored event data using available memory in the non-volatile memory 123.),
While Dittrich teaches about gathering data in a ring memory to achieve a predefined aim of the data collection campaign, it fails to disclose selecting, by the data processing device data to be stored in the ring memory via the data collection campaign, wherein the data to be stored is selected from the data available based on the maximum storage capacity of the ring memory and the information required to achieve the predefined aim and defining the data collection campaign, by the data processing device, based on the selected data to be stored.
However, Letner, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about switching module with integrated trace buffer memory, discloses selecting, by the data processing device data to be stored in the ring memory via the data collection campaign, wherein the data to be stored is selected from the data available based on the maximum storage capacity of the ring memory(Letner discloses selectively storing necessary data due to limited capacity of buffer(ring) memory, indicating a storing process according to memory capacity of the buffer memory. Letner, paragraph 57, programming the trace buffer memory controller with triggers to cause the trace buffer memory to capture selected data from data flowing through the optical backplane, providing access to the captured data, optionally providing means to offload the captured data when the trace buffer memory is nearing capacity or when data is needed, Letner, paragraph 49, since the trace buffer memory (208) has finite storage capacity, data capture may be limited to necessary data only. In an exemplary scenario, a start-stop signal may initiate the start of data capture and may also stop data capture in order to limit data storage in the trace buffer) and the information required to achieve the predefined aim(Letner discloses events that trigger the collection of data, which corresponds to the predefined aim of data collecting campaign. Letner, paragraph 40, A "trigger", as used herein, may be a signal sent to a traced port providing instructions regarding disposition of the data residing in the trace buffer (208). For example, a post-trigger signal may initiate data capture after an event of interest has occurred. In another example, a, pre-trigger signal instructs the trace buffer (208) to capture the data which occurred at a certain specified time before the event of interest occurred. In yet another example, a mid-trigger signal instructs the trace buffer (208) to capture the data before the event of interest occurred and after the event of interest occurred ); and
defining the data collection campaign, by the data processing device, based on the selected data to be stored(Letner discloses capturing data of event of interest, which corresponds to collecting selected data. Letner, paragraph 40, Accordingly triggers are used to signal a stop to the reception of data and to capture selected portions of the data when an event of interest is detected. Letner, paragraph 49, since the trace buffer memory (208) has finite storage capacity, data capture may be limited to necessary data only. In an exemplary scenario, a start-stop signal may initiate the start of data capture and may also stop data capture in order to limit data storage in the trace buffer).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dittrich with Letner to selectively store data in a buffer(ring) memory based on the capacity of the buffer memory. By dynamically selecting data according to the buffer storage capacity, it is possible to store only necessary data and prevent reception failure due to insufficient capacity of the buffer memory. (Letner, paragraph 49, Since the trace buffer memory (208) has finite storage capacity, data capture may be limited to necessary data only).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Dittrich and Letner teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11(Dittrich, paragraph 35, an example [of] data logging system 100 for collecting and storing input data 300; Letner, paragraph 57, programming the trace buffer memory controller with triggers to cause the trace buffer memory to capture selected data from data flowing through the optical backplane… when the trace buffer memory is nearing capacity or when data is needed), wherein the data is selected such that the maximum storage capacity of the ring memory is not exceeded(Dittrich discloses collecting and storing new event data until the storage capacity is full, and overwriting old data with new data when storage capacity is full. This indicates data in excess of storage capacity is not stored or selected. Dittrich, paragraph 59, New event data can be added to the already stored event data using available memory in the non-volatile memory….When the amount of data stored in the non-volatile memory has reached this maximum amount, the oldest event data can be overwritten with the newest event data, according to a first option. Dittrich, paragraph 11, the amount of data to be stored can be huge such that it may exceed the number of allowed program…[ In order to circumvent this problem], the amount of data to be recorded must be reduced, which may have the effect that not all relevant data can be stored in order not to exceed the allowed number of program and erase cycles).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Dittrich and Letner teaches a system for data processing, comprising means for carrying out the computer-implemented method of claim 11(The means for carrying out the computer-implemented method of claim 11 has been interpreted as a processing unit with CPU processors and a memory controller. Dittrich, paragraph 17, a data logging system for collecting and storing input data, comprising a processing unit that collects input data and a peripheral storage device, connected to the processing unit via an interface system. Dittrich, paragraph 37, The processing unit 111 has at least one CPU core 114, or CPU processor(s), and a memory controller 115 for controlling the volatile system memory 112 and the non-volatile system memory 113 ).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Dittrich and Letner teaches a motor vehicle, comprising: a ring memory(Dittrich, paragraph 66, a storage module related to the vehicle, such as volatile memory, e.g. RAM, etc., and/or non-volatile memory, e.g. ROM, Flash (for example NAND flash), etc., that is permanently or removably integrated in the vehicle or connectable to the vehicle. Dittrich, paragraph 24, The volatile memory of the peripheral storage device can be implemented, at least partly, as a ring buffer memory ); and a data processing device configured to control storage of data in the ring memory(According to the specification, a data processing device can be an electronic control unit (ECU), Dittrich discloses an electronic control unit that can execute instructions of different operations such as storing data. Dittrich, paragraph 30, program instructions for causing a data logging system for collecting and storing input data, said data logging system comprising a processing unit that collects input data. Dittrich, paragraph 66, [program instructions] can be executed by a computer, or a calculator, of the vehicle, such as one or more modules of electronic control units (ECUs)) in accordance with the data collection campaign defined via the computer-implemented method of claim 11( Dittrich, paragraph 17, a data logging system for collecting and storing input data, comprising a processing unit that collects input data and a peripheral storage device, connected to the processing unit via an interface system).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Dittrich and Letner teaches a computer program stored on a non-transitory medium and comprising commands that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 11(Dittrich, paragraph 65, a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions for causing the data logging system 100, to perform the steps previously described, in particular: store the input data 300 in the volatile memory 122 of the peripheral storage device).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Dittrich and Letner teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising commands that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 11(Dittrich, paragraph 65, a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions for causing the data logging system 100, to perform the steps previously described, in particular: store the input data 300 in the volatile memory 122 of the peripheral storage device).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dittrich (US 20210248842 A1) in view of Letner (US 20120113822 A1) in further view of Flohr (DE 102008010628 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Dittrich and Letner teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11(Dittrich, paragraph 35, an example [of] data logging system 100 for collecting and storing input data 300; Letner, paragraph 57, programming the trace buffer memory controller with triggers to cause the trace buffer memory to capture selected data from data flowing through the optical backplane… when the trace buffer memory is nearing capacity or when data is needed), wherein the data to be stored in the ring memory by means of the data collection campaign is selected from the data available in the motor vehicle on the basis of the maximum storage capacity of the ring memory(As discussed above, Letner discloses selectively storing necessary data due to limited capacity of buffer(ring) memory, indicating a storing process according to memory capacity of the buffer memory. Letner, paragraph 57, programming the trace buffer memory controller with triggers to cause the trace buffer memory to capture selected data from data flowing through the optical backplane, providing access to the captured data, optionally providing means to offload the captured data when the trace buffer memory is nearing capacity or when data is needed, Letner, paragraph 49, since the trace buffer memory (208) has finite storage capacity, data capture may be limited to necessary data only. In an exemplary scenario, a start-stop signal may initiate the start of data capture and may also stop data capture in order to limit data storage in the trace buffer)and the information that is required in order to achieve the predefined aim of the data collection campaign(Letner discloses events that trigger the collection of data, which corresponds to the predefined aim of data collecting campaign. Letner, paragraph 40, A "trigger", as used herein, may be a signal sent to a traced port providing instructions regarding disposition of the data residing in the trace buffer (208). For example, a post-trigger signal may initiate data capture after an event of interest has occurred. In another example, a, pre-trigger signal instructs the trace buffer (208) to capture the data which occurred at a certain specified time before the event of interest occurred. In yet another example, a mid-trigger signal instructs the trace buffer (208) to capture the data before the event of interest occurred and after the event of interest occurred).
While the combination of Dittrich and Letner teaches the collecting and storing of data in a ring memory, it fails to disclose a method of selecting data to be stored in the ring memory by ascertaining which signals of the onboard electrical system need to be tapped off, a recording period of the required signals, a signal resolution of the required signals, and/or a sampling of the required signals.
However, Flohr, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about acquisition of diagnostic data in a motor vehicle by means of a volatile ring memory, discloses a method of selecting data to be stored in the ring memory ascertaining a recording period of the required signals(Flohr, paragraph 10, a first data reduction during the search of the ring buffer is performed by means of a time window assigned to the event that occurred, which extends over a predefined time interval around the event. The time interval thus covers a lead time and a follow-up time around the event(s). Only information from this defined time window is used for the non-temporary storage is selected. Flohr, paragraph 27, The relevant time window can be defined in an observer specific or event-specific manner…The observer determines the occurrence of the event and the time window from the time format of the data stored in the ring buffer).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dittrich and Letner with Flohr to select data to be stored in the ring memory based on a recording period of the required signals/data. By selecting and storing data of event for a period of time, it is possible to store critical event data while preventing the storage of repetitive and redundant data. Additionally, reduced data can be processed quickly requiring less resources and processing cost.
Claims 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dittrich (US 20210248842 A1) in view of Letner (US 20120113822 A1) in further view of Bernhold (EP 3208775 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Dittrich and Letner the computer-implemented method of claim 11(Dittrich, paragraph 35, an example [of] data logging system 100 for collecting and storing input data 300),
While the combination of Dittrich and Letner teaches the collecting and storing of data in a ring memory, it fails to disclose a method further comprising: wirelessly transmitting the defined data collection campaign from a data processing device that has defined the data collection campaign to the motor vehicle.
However, Bernhold, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about a method of recording operating data in a motor vehicle discloses a method further comprising: wirelessly transmitting the defined data collection campaign from a data processing device that has defined the data collection campaign to the motor vehicle(Bernhold discloses a smartphone, similar to a data processing device, that can collect and transmit data to a vehicle. Bernhold, paragraph 20, between the motor vehicle and the smartphone, a local radio connection 4 is provided, via which the operating data from the motor vehicle 1 to the smartphone 3 and control commands are transmitted from the smartphone 3 to the motor vehicle 1. The wireless connection works via Bluetooth or WLAN. The above-mentioned memory unit in the form of the ring memory can also be implemented in the smartphone 3, so that the operating data are recorded in the motor vehicle and transmitted via the local radio link 4 to the smartphone for storage. Bernhold, paragraph 12, the automotive CAN bus recording device ("tracker") can be designed as an embedded ("embedded") component that has a data-conducting connection to an application running on a smartphone ("app"). The application can be used to set the functions of the tracker and to process the recorded operating data).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dittrich and Letner with Bernhold to transmit commands from data processing device(smartphone) to a motor vehicle wirelessly to record event data. Bernhold discusses wirelessly transmitting data collecting command (campaign) from a smart phone to a motor vehicle through an application, instructing the motor vehicle’s tracker to record event data. By transmitting commands or data wirelessly to a vehicle, it is possible to distribute tasks to different devices outside or inside the vehicle and minimize the tasks on vehicle’s onboard system.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Dittrich, Letner and Bernhold teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 14(Dittrich, paragraph 35, an example [of] data logging system 100 for collecting and storing input data 300; Letner, paragraph 57, programming the trace buffer memory controller with triggers to cause the trace buffer memory to capture selected data from data flowing through the optical backplane… when the trace buffer memory is nearing capacity or when data is needed; Bernhold, paragraph 20, control commands are transmitted from the smartphone 3 to the motor vehicle 1. The wireless connection works via Bluetooth or WLAN.), further comprising: storing data in the ring memory of the motor vehicle(Bernhold, paragraph 18, In the motor vehicle 1, a memory unit is also provided, with which the operating data are recorded. Bernhold, paragraph 19, the memory unit is designed as a ring memory or ring buffer which records the operating data continuously during operation )in accordance with the defined data collection campaign under the control of a data processing device of the motor vehicle(Bernhold, paragraph 19, control commands are transmitted from the smartphone 3 to the motor vehicle 1. Dittrich, paragraph 30, program instructions for causing a data logging system for collecting and storing input data, said data logging system comprising a processing unit that collects input data. Dittrich, paragraph 66, [program instructions] can be executed by a computer, or a calculator, of the vehicle, such as one or more modules of electronic control units (ECUs)).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Dittrich, Letner and Bernhold teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 15(Dittrich, paragraph 35, an example [of] data logging system 100 for collecting and storing input data 300; Letner, paragraph 57, programming the trace buffer memory controller with triggers to cause the trace buffer memory to capture selected data from data flowing through the optical backplane… when the trace buffer memory is nearing capacity or when data is needed; Bernhold, paragraph 20, control commands are transmitted from the smartphone 3 to the motor vehicle 1. The wireless connection works via Bluetooth or WLAN.), further comprising: wirelessly transmitting the data stored in the ring memory of the motor vehicle from the motor vehicle to a backend system(Bernhold, paragraph 16, when the recording is started, the contents of the ring buffer are initially stored…All data can be sent later directly to the backend, where it is advantageous for the Backend to provide a cloud solution. Bernhold, paragraph 12, the data transmission between the tracker and the smartphone as well as between the smartphone and the backend advantageously takes place in each case via a radio connection, in particular via a remote radio connection LTE, UMTS or a local radio connection such as WLAN or Bluetooth).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BESUFEKAD LEMMA TESSEMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6850. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 5712727298. 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.
/BESUFEKAD LEMMA TESSEMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights