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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Examiners note: This application has a new Examiner.
Specification/Drawings
The updates to the Specification and drawings appear to be a clarification, no new matter. Thank you to the applicant for doing these changes.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues:
In rejecting independent claims 1 and 10, the Office Action cites par. [0009] of Osann as alleged disclosure of the claimed features related to initiating a planned journey without activating journey monitoring in response to determining that the planned journey does not include at least one special condition. See Office Action at pp. 7 and 25.
However, the cited portion of Osann only includes description of an embodiment of the disclosed invention in Osann of providing a prediction that a return journey may not be in time:
FIG. 3 shows a flow chart for a second exemplary embodiment of the invention
wherein 3'd parties are notified if it is predicted based at least in part on the traveler's current location and applicable route conditions, that the travelers won't return home (the arrival location) by a specified date/time.
- Osann at par. [0009]. (Emphasis added).
In other words, this cited portion only includes description of a journey being monitored and a third party being notified based on the conditions of the monitored journey-for example, if the monitoring system predicts that the traveler would not return or arrive on time based at least in part on the traveler's [monitored] current location and applicable route conditions. Indeed, FIG. 3 of Osann referenced in the cited portion and reproduced below illustrates a step s304 of tracking phone locations for all travelers of a registered trip:…
The Office Action cites Alhammad as a combining citation to specifically address additional features of claims 1 and 10 related to determining whether an updated arrival time has been received and alert hierarchy. See Office Action at pp. 11-16. Thus, the combination with this citation fails to address the above-described deficiencies of Osann vis-a-vis the claimed features related to initiating a journey without initiating journey monitoring in response to determining that the journey does not include one or more special conditions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant is arguing that Claim 1 and 10 have not been fully covered and what they indicate is not covered (see underlined and highlighted above). No where in the claims does the statement “current location” appear, though is suggested. And is arguing based only on the sections cited. Applicant is encouraged to consider the cited art in the entirety, even though the Office Action has not cited one or more parts of a reference, the uncited portions may also have particular relevance to the pending claims and/or any potential amendments. See 103 with more explanation of the sources indicated.
Applicant further argues:
The Office Action cites Hishiki, Zimmer, Ricci, and Dusane as further combining citations to specifically address the additional features recited in claims 3, 7-8, 12, and 16-17, which depend from claims 1 and 10, respectively. As such, further combinations with these citations would still have failed to cure the above-described deficiencies of Osann and Alhammad vis-a-vis claims 1 and 10, even assuming, arguendo, that such further combinations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made, which assumption is not conceded here. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 3, 7-8, 12, and 16-17, which depend from claims 1 and 10, respectively, are patentable over the citations
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Note that under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. 2111.01 (I). See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'"2111.01 (II)
With respect to the interpretation of claim terms, MPEP 2111 states:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004).(see MPEP 2111.01).
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (see PMEP 2111).
Accordingly, the claims herein will be interpreted in accordance with the MPEP 2111.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 18 are rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OSANN (US 20160006855 A1) in view of ALHAMMAD (US 20230199459 A1).
NOTE: Even though the ALHAMMAD reference shares the same inventor and assignee of the current application, the publication date of ALHAMMAD (06-22-2023) predates the current application's filling date (09-19-2024) by over a year.
Regarding Claim 1:
OSANN discloses:
A system, comprising: one or more processing devices; a communications interface; a non-transitory computer-readable memory operatively connected to the one or more processing devices and having stored thereon machine-readable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processing devices to: [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0072 ("At least certain principles of the invention can be implemented as hardware, firmware, software or any combination thereof.” Thus describing the use of processors and other components as indicated in the preamble of the instant claim 1.)];
obtain, via the communications interface from a computing device, a plurality of parameters for a planned journey of a vehicle associated with the computing device; [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0011-0017, "[0011] A first object of the invention is to provide a computerized method performed using one or more processors and a cellular communications network for notification of a potential emergency condition…” [0016] “tracking using at least GPS data, locations of the one or more designated travelers to determine a proximity of the one or more designated travelers with respect to the arrival location;” Note that this is indicating that the “traveler’s (monitored) current location” is taught; and [0017] “determining at the designated arrival time” thus teaching determining and monitoring arrival times.)]
determine, based on the plurality of parameters, whether the planned journey includes at least one special condition; (see at least OSANN, ¶ 0038 (shows tracking of passengers and their phones and "to determine their proximity to an arrival location 104. If an actual arrival (return) time, or a predicted return time, is later than a designated arrival time for one or more registered phones belonging to the one or more travelers, then one or more messages (text, email, or automated call) are sent to one or more responsible parties”)];
in response to determining that the planned journey includes at least one special condition, activate journey monitoring upon initiating the planned journey; [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0038 (“at least the current position of travelers 102 and applicable route conditions 110 between the travelers and the arrival location are taken onto account.”); ¶ 0039 (discusses the tracking/monitoring of a vehicle and/or travelers.)];
in response to determining that the planned journey does not include at
least one special condition, initiate the planned journey without activating the journey monitoring; [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0009 (discussers " wherein [3rd] parties are notified if it is predicted based at least in part on the traveler's current location and applicable route conditions, that the travelers won't return home (the arrival location) by a specified date/time.")];
wherein the journey monitoring comprises: [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0010 (discusses the overall concept of the instant claims in that OSANN is discussing trip monitoring and calculations)];
"obtaining, via the communications interface, a location of the vehicle; [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0041 (shows the tracking of phone locations of the travelers within a vehicle)];
comparing the obtained location of the vehicle to an expected location based on an expected progress of the initiated journey; [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0038];
in response to the comparing indicating that the obtained location of
the vehicle exceeds a predetermined distance from the expected location, [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0057-0060 (indicated a specified (similar to predetermined) distance of "the one or more travelers a specified number of minutes or hours before the designated arrival time under one or more of the following conditions” and [0058] ”the current location of the one or more travelers is not within a specified distance or travel time of the arrival location;” and [0060] Indicating travel arrival time, as well as [0063] "If the one or more travelers don't respond to warnings within a specified amount of time, then the emergency contact person(s) are contacted. The emergency contact person(s) can be notified of the traveler's last known position in case they need to contact authorities.")];
determine, in an iterative or recursive manner, whether an updated arrival time has been received from one or more of the computing device and the vehicle via the communications interface, said determination comprising: [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0050-0054 [0050] (indicates predicted arrival time has changed and if “an emergency condition may exist " and : [0051] “Attempting to contact the one or more designated travelers.” and [0052] reasons to take “ an emergency action that comprises at least one or more of: [0053] a) Accessing the home location of the one or more designated travelers to care for pets and/or people. [0054] b) Contacting law enforcement to report that the one or more designated travelers are missing."); and ¶ 0057; ¶ 0063 further support of this limitation)];
in response to determining that the updated arrival time has been received, [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0057; ¶ 0061 ( "The user or any of the one or more travelers can respond with buttons or voice commands to delay or advance the designated arrival time.")];
registering the received updated arrival time in association with the initiated journey and terminating said determining for the updated arrival time; [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0022 ("capability to adjust the designated arrival time during the trip to create a new designated arrival time,”); ¶ 0050 (shows arrival time alterations); [0051] (“1) Attempting to contact the one or more designated travelers. [0052] 2) If the one or more designated travelers cannot be contacted, then taking an emergency action that comprises at least one or more of: [0053] a) Accessing the home location of the one or more designated travelers to care for pets and/or people. [0054] b) Contacting law enforcement to report that the one or more designated travelers are missing."); and ¶ 0056, ("Any of the user who registered the trip, or optionally any of the one or more travelers, can adjust the designated return/arrival time during a trip…”)].
OSANN does not disclose, but ALHAMAD teaches:
in response to determining that the updated arrival time has not been received after a predetermined time period, [see at least ALHAMMAD, ¶ 0042, (discusses managing updates of the arrival time); ¶ 0043, (more on updating the arrival time and notifications)]
transmitting an alert to another computing device associated with an operator on a next level in a hierarchy associated with the initiated journey; and [see at least ALHAMMAD, ¶ 0041, ("FIG. 3A shows an example workflow (300) of the auto-notification and escalation engine (301) for journey management.”); ¶ 0044, ("The retrieved journeys are processed for SOS status (304c). Specifically, it is checked if any journey is already late by 3 hours.”)];
incrementing an iteration counter for a next iteration until the iteration counter exceeds a predetermined iteration number; and [see at least ALHAMMAD, ¶ 0041];
in response to the iteration counter exceeding the predetermined iteration number, transmitting a request for emergency services, said request comprising location information from a plurality of sources selected from the group consisting of: [see at least ALHAMMAD, ¶ 0044];
a global positioning system (GPS) location associated with the vehicle, a GPS location associated with the computing device, [see at least ALHAMMAD, ¶ 0014, "Embodiments of the invention provide a journey management method and a geographic information system for auto-notification and escalation of tiered late check-in status… retrieved from a geographical information system (GIS). A tiered late check-in status of the journeyer with respect to the scheduled check-in time is then determined based on a current time.”)];
a location associated with the vehicle determined based on one or more terrestrial networks, a location associated with the computing device determined based on one or more terrestrial networks. (see at least ALHAMMAD, ¶ 0046, "FIG. 3D shows an GIS data organization…
the geographic information system (GIS) with integrated journey data enables smart background process for monitoring all journeys based on set intervals,”)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the tracking of user distance from the arrival location and messaging for initializing emergency communications when no response is received within OSANN to include the automated emergency dispatch that accounts for time-based notifications and perceived location tracking within ALHAMMAD to yield a more effective automated emergency detection system that dispatches emergency services to the last known location and avoids false positives by instituting a structured time-based contacting scheme.
Regarding Claim 2:
OSANN in view of ALHAMMAD discloses the limitations within claim 1 and OSANN
further discloses:
the predetermined distance is about 1 kilometer (km) to about 2 km, [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0057, "A warning message may optionally be sent to the one or more travelers a specified number of minutes or hours before the designated arrival time”); 0058; 0059; 0060]
OSANN does not disclose, but ALHAMMAD teaches:
the predetermined time period is about 1 hour, and (see at least ALHAMMAD, ¶ 0042, ("On a regular basis, all active journeys at a given time are retrieved from a data repository (302) as triggered by a timer (303) to perform late journey process (304).”) ¶ 0043]
the predetermined iteration number is 2. [see at least ALHAMMAD, ¶ 0042; 0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the tracking of user distance from the arrival location and messaging for initializing emergency communications when no response is received within OSANN to include the automated emergency dispatch that accounts for time-based notifications and perceived location tracking within ALHAMMAD to yield a more effective automated emergency detection system that dispatches emergency services to the last known location and avoids false positives by instituting a structured time-based contacting scheme.
Regarding Claim 4:
OSANN in view of ALHAMMAD discloses the limitations within claim 1 and OSANN
further discloses:
further comprising additional machine-readable instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable memory that, when executed, cause the one or more processing devices to: [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0072]
in response to the comparing indicating that the obtained location of the vehicle exceeds a predetermined distance from the expected location and prior to said determining for the updated arrival time, transmit a notification to the computing device, [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0042; 0043; 0044; 0045; 0046; 0057 ("A warning message may optionally be sent to the one or more travelers a specified number of minutes or hours before the designated arrival time under one or more of the following conditions” 0058; 0059; 0060].
said notification comprising a prompt for a user to request the emergency services. [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0042]
Regarding Claim 5:
OSANN in view of ALHAMMAD discloses the limitations within claim 4 and OSANN further discloses:
the notification further comprises a prompt for a user input for the updated arrival time. (see at least OSANN, ¶ 0050-0054; 0056].
Regarding Claim 6:
OSANN in view of ALHAMMAD discloses the limitations within claim 1 and OSANN
further discloses:
determining whether the obtained location of the vehicle is within a predetermined proximity of a destination of the initiated journey, [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0067 (discusses end of trip and "prevents premature cancelling of a tracking/notification function if a traveler returns home prematurely and/or temporarily (for instance to take care of something they forgot) before actually beginning the planned trip.")];
wherein the journey monitoring is executed in an iterative or recursive manner until the obtained location of the vehicle is determined to be within the predetermined proximity of the destination of the initiated journey, and [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0038; 0039];
wherein the journey monitoring is terminated upon receiving, via the communications interface, an arrival confirmation from at least one of the computing device and the vehicle. [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0067].
Regarding Claim 9:
OSANN in view of ALHAMMAD discloses the limitations within claim 1 and OSANN further discloses:
the parameters comprise a starting point of the planned journey, [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0041 ("Tracking typically starts at a designated start”); ¶ 0049];
a destination of the planned journey, [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0049];
a start time of the planned journey, and [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0041].
OMANN does not disclose, but ALHAMMAD teaches:
an identifier for the vehicle. [see at least ALHAMMAD, ¶ 0044 ("The retrieved journeys are processed for SOS status… spatial analysis is performed to identify the last known position of the driver's mobile device and vehicle position (from an automatic vehicle locator (AVL) system” which must include the vehicle identifier)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the tracking of the user's planned journey and messaging for initializing emergency communications when no response is received within OSANN to include the automated emergency dispatch with unique vehicle IDs that accounts for time-based notifications and perceived location tracking within ALHAMMAD to yield a more effective automated emergency detection system that dispatches emergency services to the last known location and avoids false positives by instituting a structured vehicle-specific time-based contacting scheme.
Regarding claim 10:
With regards to claim 10, this claim is the method claim to independent claim 1 and is substantially similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Regarding claim 11:
With regards to claim 11, this claim is substantially similar to claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Regarding claim 13:
With regards to claim 13, this claim is substantially similar to claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Regarding claim 14:
With regards to claim 14, this claim is substantially similar to claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Regarding claim 15:
With regards to claim 15, this claim is substantially similar to claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Regarding claim 18:
With regards to claim 18, this claim is substantially similar to claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claims 3, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OSANN (US 20160006855) in view of ALHAMMAD (US 20230199459) in further view of HISHIKI (JP7460192) in further view of ZIMMER (US 20150163626) in further view of RICCI (US 20190279440).
Regarding Claim 3:
OSANN in view of ALHAMMAD discloses the limitations within claim 1 and OSANN further discloses:
the one or more special conditions are selected from the group consisting of: [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0038]
OSANN does not disclose, but ALHAMMAD teaches:
travel in an area lacking terrestrial network coverage, and [see at least ALHAMMAD, ¶ 0046] ("…an GIS data organization… auto-notification and escalation engine (301) for journey management…blackspot area data (321a), building footprint data (321b), road network data (321c), journey tracks data (321d), vehicle last known position data (321e), sites and facilities data (3210, Emergency Control Centers data… geographic information system (GIS) to show many different kinds of data on a single map…")];
travel outside of at least one coverage area of a location determination service. [see at least ALHAMMAD, ¶ 0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the tracking of user distance from the arrival location and messaging for initializing emergency communications when no response is received within OSANN to include the automated emergency dispatch that accounts for time-based notifications and tracks the vehicle based on signal blackspots to approximate the last known vehicle area within ALHAMMAD to yield a more effective automated emergency detection system that dispatches emergency services to the last known location the vehicle was detected.
OSANN in view of ALHAMMAD does not disclose, but HISHIKI teaches:
nighttime driving, [see at least HISHIKI, ¶ 0158 ("allows for accurate labor management even in the case of overnight operations."); 0200 more on overnight operations) ].
travel and activity that exceeds 24 hours, [see at least HISHIKI, ¶ 0158; 0200].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the user and route condition tracking for updating of arrival times and determining emergency conditions of OSANN in view of ALHAMMAD to include the work status management system for monitoring driver schedules and tracking required rest periods for drivers running overnight within HISHIKI to yield a safer traveling environment wherein driver exhaustion is accounted for in updating arrival times.
OSANN in view of ALHAMMAD in further view of HISHIKI does not disclose, but ZIMMER teaches:
travel that crosses a national border, (see at least ZIMMER, ¶ 0122 ("GeoFences can be used to generate an alert should any of your users or assets enter or leave a specified country, region, city or building… when a user enters or leaves a country.’); 0145 ("An alert can be generated corresponding to a possible border crossing event.”)];
travel outside of safe zones, [see at least ZIMMER, ¶ 0121 ("Using GeoFences, Georeach allows you to identify safe havens in otherwise hostile environments”); 0123, "GeoReach allows you to know if a vehicle, asset or person deviates from a planned and timed route”)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the user and route condition tracking for updating of arrival times, determining emergency conditions, and tracking of driver hours within OSANN in view of ALHAMMAD in further view of HISHIKI to implement additional monitoring for crossing country borders and traveling into hostile environments within ZIMMER to yield a safer travel alert system that preemptively monitors, the user and route condition tracking for updating of arrival times and determining emergency conditions of OSANN in view of ALHAMMAD to implement additional monitoring for crossing country borders and traveling into hostile environments within ZIMMER to yield a safer travel alert system that preemptively warns about the driver and monitoring party about what areas can be safely crossed or avoided.
OSANN in view of ALHAMMAD in further view of HISHIKI in further view of ZIMMER
does not disclose, but RICCI teaches:
travel off road, [see at least RICCI, ¶ 0689 (discusses location of vehicle including "Zone 3 may restrict the vehicle to no use on specific roadways (e.g. the backroad "road to Hana" in Maui) or types of roads (off-road use).”)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the user and route condition tracking for updating of arrival times, determining emergency conditions, tracking of driver hours, and tracking hostile areas within OSANN in view of ALHAMMAD in further view of HISHIKI to include determinations on whether a vehicle is allowed to be used off-road as within RICCI to provide an effective vehicle monitoring system that prevents accidents from improper use of vehicles on undesired roads.
Regarding claim 12:
With regards to claim 12, this claim is substantially similar to claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claims 7, 8, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
OSANN (US 20160006855 A1) in view of ALHAMMAD (US 20230199459 A1) in further view of DUSANE (US 20170101054 A1).
Regarding Claim 7:
OSANN in view of ALHAMMAD discloses the limitations within claim 6 and OSANN discloses:
the journey monitoring further comprises: [see at least OSANN, ¶ 0010 " The disclosed methods provide monitoring of a trip's progress”)].
OSANN does not disclose, but DUSANE teaches:
receiving, via the communications interface, a communication from a subsystem of the vehicle indicating damage or malfunction in connection with the vehicle, [see at least DUSANE, ¶ 0052, "The in-vehicle computing system 200 may be configured to detect the occurrence of an accident, impact, or mechanical failure of the vehicle 201 based on input received from the various sensors of vehicle”)];
wherein the transmitting of the alert to another computing device is executed in response to receiving the communication from the subsystem of the vehicle. [see at least DUSANE, ¶ 0090 ("if a mechanical failure occurs, then the alert may be transmitted to a car repair shop or mechanic. In the event of a medical emergency of one of the passengers and/or driver of the vehicle, an alert may be sent to an ambulance. Thus depending on the nature of the alert, one or more third party services may be notified of the alert of the vehicle.")].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the tracking of user distance/time from the arrival location and messaging for initializing emergency communications when no response is received within OSANN in view of ALHAMMAD to include tracking for vehicle component conditions with the ability to transmit alerts for acquiring medical or maintenance aid when a failure occurs as within DUSANE to effectively yield an emergency vehicle maintenance dispatch service that sends aid when vehicle subsystems sense a failure.
Regarding Claim 8:
OSANN in view of ALHAMMAD in further view of DUSANE discloses the limitations within claim 7 and OSANN does not disclose, but DUSANE teaches:
the transmitting of the request for emergency services is executed in response to receiving the communication from the subsystem of the vehicle. [see at least DUSANE, ¶ 0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the tracking of user distance/time from the arrival location and messaging for initializing emergency communications when no response is received within OSANN in view of ALHAMMAD to include tracking for vehicle component conditions with the ability to transmit alerts for acquiring medical or maintenance aid when a failure occurs as within DUSANE to effectively yield an emergency vehicle maintenance dispatch service that sends aid when vehicle subsystems sense a failure.
Regarding claim 16:
With regards to claim 16, this claim is substantially similar to claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Regarding claim 17:
With regards to claim 17, this claim is substantially similar to claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
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 JOAN T GOODBODY whose telephone number is (571) 270-7952. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7-3 (US Eastern time).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RACHID BENDIDI can be reached at (571) 272-4896. The Fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspot.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from the USPTO Customer Serie Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOAN T GOODBODY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
(571) 270-7952
Prosecution Insights