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 Amendment
The amendment to the drawings and the specification have overcome the objections to the drawings and the specification due to minor informality. The objections to the drawings and the specification have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see the section titled “Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 103” starting on page 8 of the reply filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the second paragraph beginning on page 11 of the reply filed 06/26/2026, Applicant argues that the Kaiser and Lei references fail to teach or suggest, at least, a system to provide an application to a user device, wherein the application receives information from a passive device that corresponds to a vehicle, and “determine a location area of the vehicle based on the user device” interacting with a network component; however, the Examiner disagrees.
For example, in the last paragraph of page 11 continuing onto page 12 of the reply filed 06/26/2026, Applicant argues that “The Lei reference is silent with respect to any determining of a location area of a vehicle based on a user device as recited in claim 1.” In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is the Examiner’s opinion that the combination of art discloses the recited subject matter.
More specifically, Lei teaches in paragraphs [0167-0183] that the location service entity is an entity configured to locate the traveling location of the vehicle, where positioning methods used by the location service entity include at least one of the following methods: a downlink-angle of departure (DL-AoD) based on NR [new radio] signals, a downlink-TDOA [time difference of arrival] (DL-TDOA) based on NR signal, an uplink-TDOA (UL-TDOA) based on NR signals for example, and an uplink-angle of arrival (UL-AoA), including an A-AoA and a Z-AoA based on NR signals. It is the Examiner’s opinion that the teachings of Lei pertaining to positioning techniques based on network interaction, such as the various new radio related calculations, are device agnostic in that they may be implemented within any “user device” as long as the device is capable of interacting with the network, while still achieving the technical advantages which may motivate such a combination. For example, in one embodiment of the combination, the location determination techniques of Lei may be implemented in the smartphone as disclosed by Kaiser, where the Examiner opines that the ability of a smartphone to interact with a network, even in particular new radio signals, is well understood in the art and may be implemented without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results.
Furthermore, in an embodiment in which the vehicle of Kaiser is modified to perform the location determination as part of the user device in communication with a network, Applicant argues that Kaiser is not combinable with Lei where Kaiser states that “It may be desirable, for at least some applications, to isolate the NFC tag from the network of in-vehicle devices such that vehicle security is not compromised” in paragraph [0022]. Examiner indicates that Kaiser merely states the advantage of isolating one component from the network of in-vehicle devices “for at least some applications” and does not suffice as a disclosure that wholly teaches away or renders the combination of Kaiser and Lei inoperable. It is the Examiner’s opinion that the implementation of the teachings of Lei with the system as disclosed by Kaiser is motivated by at least achieving a technical advantage, in that, for example, utilizing the teachings of Lei only requires the use of network communications hardware which may already be installed without requiring the need for specialized sensors to determine position, or may be implemented as a further means of obtaining location data that may be otherwise used to improve the accuracy of location determination by considering a greater variety of relevant available data, for example. Therefore, whether the network communication techniques as taught by Lei are implemented within the vehicle, smartphone, or both, a similar technical advantage is garnered and the claim limitation in question is unpatentable over the cited combination of art.
Applicant further argues in the first paragraph beginning on page 12 of the reply filed 06/26/2026 that “There is no motivation to combine the Kaiser and Lei references, and no motivation has been shown” where “the only basis for purportedly using Lei with Kaiser appears to be an alleges understanding that ‘such techniques of location estimation via network interaction such as those listed by Lei are well understood in the art’”; however, the Examiner disagrees. Examiner indicates, as above, that the combination of art is motivated by at least achieving a technical advantage, in that, for example, utilizing the teachings of Lei only requires the use of network communications hardware which may already be installed without requiring the need for specialized sensors to determine position, or may be implemented as a further means of obtaining location data that may be otherwise used to improve the accuracy of location determination by considering a greater variety of relevant available data, for example.
Therefore, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 is maintained. Similar reasoning is applied to independent claim 15 and the corresponding dependent claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 3, in the first paragraph beginning on page 15 of the reply filed 06/26/2026, Applicant argues that Kaiser does not suggest the subject matter of claims 2 and 3 where Kaiser states that “Aspects of the disclosed concepts also help to eliminate the need for cellular, WiFi and Bluetooth® communications hardware, which may be less secure and less reliable than an NFC-enabled communications system.” However, Examiner opines that, similarly to arguments expressed above, such a recitation merely exemplifies one possible embodiment and advantage of the disclosure of Kaiser and does not suffice as wholly contradictory language that teaches away from itself or otherwise renders other embodiments inoperable or unapplicable. To support Examiner’s argument, Kaiser goes on in paragraph [0011] to express that “NFC-enabled HMI system 18 may also be equipped with a secondary wireless transceiver 40” that “could be a Wi-Fi radio, Bluetooth® component, a cellular antenna or some other form of wireless communication.” Furthermore, regarding claim 2, it is the Examiner’s understanding that NFC is a radio communication technology.
Regarding dependent claim 5, in the final paragraph of page 15 of the reply filed 06/26/2026, Applicant argues that the combination of art does not teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 5 that involves determining a location area based in part on an angle of arrival associated with a user device; however, the Examiner disagrees. For example, in paragraphs [0167-0183], Lei teaches that the location service entity is an entity configured to locate the traveling location of the vehicle, where positioning methods used by the location service entity include at least one of the following methods: a downlink-angle of departure (DL-AoD) based on NR [new radio] signals, and an uplink-angle of arrival (UL-AoA), including an A-AoA and a Z-AoA based on NR signals. The Examiner opines that the downlink/uplink angle of arrival as taughy by Lei must at least be “associated” with the user device under its broadest reasonable interpretation in that the user device is performing the network communication.
Regarding dependent claim 4, in the last paragraph beginning on page 16 of the reply filed 06/26/2026, Applicant argues that “no motivation to combine Dasala with Kaiser and Lei has been shown”; however, the Examiner disagrees. In addition to expressing why Examiner believes Dasala should be considered analogous art to the claimed invention, Examiner provides a technical advantage which may be achieved to motivate the combination as expressed by Dasal in paragraph [0025] for example, that “Backscattering technology offers very low-power wireless communication by enabling such devices to piggyback their data on the RF signals of other devices, instead of generating and transmitting their own signals, which may eliminate the need for an active transmitter and power-hungry RF components and enabling backscatter devices to communicate on a very low energy budget.”
Regarding claim 7 and 17, in the second paragraph beginning on page 17 of the reply filed 06/26/2026, Applicant argues “the Pham reference does not relate to any passive device.” In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is the Examiner’s opinion that the combination of art discloses the recited subject matter. For example, Pham teaches maintenance-related information which is wirelessly obtained from a vehicle device by a user device, which may be implemented as the obtained information from the passive device as disclosed by the combination of Kaiser and Lei. Examiner further motivates such a teaching where implementing the teachings of Pham improves access to maintenance-related information of the vehicle, for example, “assist[ing] end users in diagnosing, locating, and addressing vehicle issues” as suggested by Pham in paragraph [0025].
Applicant’s arguments with respect to dependent claim 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser (US 10,104,525 B1), in view of Lei (US 2023/0030446 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kaiser discloses a system for viewing vehicle information, the system comprising:
one or more processors (In column 11 lines 26-60, Kaiser discloses that aspects of the present disclosure may be practiced with a variety of computer-system and computer-network configurations, including multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable-consumer electronics, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like, and where any of the methods described herein may include machine readable instructions for execution by: (a) a processor, (b) a controller, and/or (c) any other suitable processing device); and
one or more computer-readable media storing computer-usable instructions (In column 11 lines 26-60, Kaiser discloses that aspects of the present disclosure may be practiced with a variety of computer-system and computer-network configurations, including multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable-consumer electronics, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like, and where any of the methods described herein may include machine readable instructions for execution by: (a) a processor, (b) a controller, and/or (c) any other suitable processing device) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
provide an application to a user device, wherein the application receives information from a passive device that corresponds to a vehicle (In column 6 lines 29-58, Kaiser discloses that vehicle 10 is equipped with an NFC-enabled component 36, which may be in the nature of an NFC tag, an NFC reader, an NFC reader-writer, whether passive or active, to wirelessly transmit vehicle information to either the tablet computer 20, smartphone 22, or other proximally located NFC-enabled device; in column 10 lines 20-36, Kaiser discloses that the off-board electronic device 20 may come pre-installed with, or the user may independently download, a dedicated mobile software application for communicating with the vehicle 10);
analyze the information received from the passive device (In column 8 lines 21-47, Kaiser discloses that maintaining an uninterrupted, continuous communications session between the vehicle 10 and device 20 may necessitate periodically testing the NFC communications channel and the status of the third-party device (e.g., proximity and activation status)).
Although from column 6 line 59 to column 7 line 15 Kaiser discloses that the HMI system 18 can store vehicle and driver information in resident memory 38 and, optionally, store/access such data via remote memory or cloud computing resources [network components], schematically illustrated at 44, for use as appropriate, Kaiser does not explicitly disclose determining a location area of the vehicle based on the user device interacting with a network component.
However, Lei teaches determining a location area of the vehicle based on the user device interacting with a network component (In paragraphs [0167-0183], Lei teaches that the location service entity is an entity configured to locate the traveling location of the vehicle, where positioning methods used by the location service entity include at least one of the following methods: a downlink-angle of departure (DL-AoD) based on NR [new radio] signals, a downlink-TDOA [time difference of arrival] (DL-TDOA) based on NR signal, an uplink-TDOA (UL-TDOA) based on NR signals for example, and an uplink-angle of arrival (UL-AoA), including an A-AoA and a Z-AoA based on NR signals).
Lei is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to determining vehicle location based on network interaction. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Lei with the system as disclosed by Kaiser where the Examiner understands that such techniques of location estimation via network interaction such as those listed by Lei are well understood in the art, and may be implemented without undue experimentation, and with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so may be advantageous in that, for example, doing so only requires the use of network communications hardware which may already be installed without further requiring specialized sensors, or may be implemented as a further means of obtaining location data that may be otherwise used to improve the accuracy of location determination by considering a greater variety of relevant available data.
Regarding claim 2, Kaiser further discloses wherein the application receives information from the passive device based on the application causing the user device to emit radio waves (In column 6 lines 29-58, Kaiser discloses that NFC-enabled component 36 utilizes an NFC tag 37 where the tag's IC is generally configured for magnetic field (MF) induction to enable short-range data exchanges).
Regarding claim 3, Kaiser further discloses wherein the radio waves comprise radio waves that operate in a WiFi, Bluetooth, or cellular frequency (From column 6 line 59 to column 7 line 15 Kaiser discloses that NFC-enabled HMI system 18 may also be equipped with a secondary wireless transceiver 40 that could be a Wi-Fi radio, Bluetooth® component, a cellular antenna or some other form of wireless communication).
Regarding claim 5, Lei further teaches wherein determining the location area is based at least in part on a downlink/uplink angle of arrival associated with the user device (In paragraphs [0167-0183], Lei teaches that the location service entity is an entity configured to locate the traveling location of the vehicle, where positioning methods used by the location service entity include at least one of the following methods: a downlink-angle of departure (DL-AoD) based on NR [new radio] signals, a downlink-TDOA [time difference of arrival] (DL-TDOA) based on NR signal, an uplink-TDOA (UL-TDOA) based on NR signals for example, and an uplink-angle of arrival (UL-AoA), including an A-AoA and a Z-AoA based on NR signals).
Regarding claim 6, Lei further teaches wherein determining the location area is based at least in part on a downlink/uplink time difference of arrival (In paragraphs [0167-0183], Lei teaches that the location service entity is an entity configured to locate the traveling location of the vehicle, where positioning methods used by the location service entity include at least one of the following methods: a downlink-angle of departure (DL-AoD) based on NR [new radio] signals, a downlink-TDOA [time difference of arrival] (DL-TDOA) based on NR signal, an uplink-TDOA (UL-TDOA) based on NR signals for example, and an uplink-angle of arrival (UL-AoA), including an A-AoA and a Z-AoA based on NR signals).
Regarding claim 15, Kaiser further discloses a non-transitory computer readable media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more computer processing components, cause the one or more computer processing components to perform a method for facilitating viewing of vehicle information, the method comprising:
causing a mobile device to receive vehicle information for a first vehicle from a passive device (In column 6 lines 29-58, Kaiser discloses that vehicle 10 is equipped with an NFC-enabled component 36, which may be in the nature of an NFC tag, an NFC reader, an NFC reader-writer, whether passive or active, to wirelessly transmit vehicle information to either the tablet computer 20, smartphone 22, or other proximally located NFC-enabled device; in column 10 lines 20-36, Kaiser discloses that the off-board electronic device 20 may come pre-installed with, or the user may independently download, a dedicated mobile software application for communicating with the vehicle 10); and
receiving information associated with the mobile device (In column 8 lines 21-47, Kaiser discloses that maintaining an uninterrupted, continuous communications session between the vehicle 10 and device 20 may necessitate periodically testing the NFC communications channel and the status of the third-party device (e.g., proximity and activation status)).
Kaiser does not explicitly disclose using the information associated with the mobile device to determine a geographic area;
associating the geographic area with the first vehicle; and
providing the vehicle information and the geographic area to an application for viewing.
However, Lei teaches using the information associated with the mobile device to determine a geographic area (In paragraphs [0167-0183], Lei teaches that the location service entity is an entity configured to locate the traveling location of the vehicle, where positioning methods used by the location service entity include at least one of the following methods: a downlink-angle of departure (DL-AoD) based on NR [new radio] signals, a downlink-TDOA [time difference of arrival] (DL-TDOA) based on NR signal, an uplink-TDOA (UL-TDOA) based on NR signals for example, and an uplink-angle of arrival (UL-AoA), including an A-AoA and a Z-AoA based on NR signals);
associating the geographic area with the first vehicle (In paragraphs [0167-0183], Lei teaches that the location service entity is an entity configured to locate the traveling location of the vehicle, where positioning methods used by the location service entity include at least one of the following methods: a downlink-angle of departure (DL-AoD) based on NR [new radio] signals, a downlink-TDOA [time difference of arrival] (DL-TDOA) based on NR signal, an uplink-TDOA (UL-TDOA) based on NR signals for example, and an uplink-angle of arrival (UL-AoA), including an A-AoA and a Z-AoA based on NR signals); and
providing the vehicle information and the geographic area to an application for viewing (In paragraph [0081], Lei teaches virtually presenting a road condition of the vehicle, other vehicles nearby, VRUs, and other information to assist in decision making, such as displaying the road condition of the vehicle, other vehicles nearly, VRUs, and other information).
Lei is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to determining vehicle location based on network interaction. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Lei with the non-transitory computer readable media as disclosed by Kaiser where the Examiner understands that such techniques of location estimation via network interaction such as those listed by Lei are well understood in the art, and may be implemented without undue experimentation, and with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so may be advantageous in that, for example, doing so only requires the use of network communications hardware which may already be installed without further requiring specialized sensors, or may be implemented as a further means of obtaining location data that may be otherwise used to improve the accuracy of location determination by considering a greater variety of relevant available data.
Regarding claim 16, Kaiser further discloses wherein the passive device is connected to a vehicle information output of the first vehicle (In column 3 lines 30-53, Kaiser discloses that the motor vehicle also includes a vehicle controller that is attached to the vehicle body and communicatively connected to the vehicle's NFC-enabled onboard electronic device).
Regarding claim 20, Kaiser further discloses wherein the vehicle information comprises identification information for the vehicle (From column 9 line 37 to column 10 line 2, Kaiser discloses that the conveyed data may include vehicle identification information).
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser (US 10,104,525 B1) and Lei (US 2023/0030446 A1), in view of Dasala (US 2025/0203527 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kaiser and Lei does not explicitly disclose wherein the passive device uses a back-scattered radio signal to send the information from the passive device to the user device.
However, Dasala teaches wherein the passive device uses a back-scattered radio signal to send the information from the passive device to the user device (In paragraph [0025], Dasala teaches that a wireless communication system may include one or more devices that harvest or acquire energy from a wireless signal and use the harvested energy for wireless communication, sensing, or other operations of the device, where the device may be referred to as a passive device, a semi-passive device, an energy harvesting device, a tag, a backscatter device, or a UE, among other examples, and the device may include an energy harvesting modality (e.g., a backscatter radio)).
Dasala is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to utilizing back-scattered radio for communications with a passive device. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Dasala with the system as disclosed by the combination of Kaiser and Lei, where “Backscattering technology offers very low-power wireless communication by enabling such devices to piggyback their data on the RF signals of other devices, instead of generating and transmitting their own signals, which may eliminate the need for an active transmitter and power-hungry RF components and enabling backscatter devices to communicate on a very low energy budget” as suggested by Dasala in paragraph [0025], for example.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kaiser and Lei does not explicitly disclose wherein the passive device communicates with the mobile device using, at least in part, a back-scattered signal.
However, Dasala teaches wherein the passive device communicates with the mobile device using, at least in part, a back-scattered signal (In paragraph [0025], Dasala teaches that a wireless communication system may include one or more devices that harvest or acquire energy from a wireless signal and use the harvested energy for wireless communication, sensing, or other operations of the device, where the device may be referred to as a passive device, a semi-passive device, an energy harvesting device, a tag, a backscatter device, or a UE, among other examples, and the device may include an energy harvesting modality (e.g., a backscatter radio)).
Dasala is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to utilizing back-scattered radio for communications with a passive device. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Dasala with the non-transitory computer readable media as disclosed by the combination of Kaiser and Lei, where “Backscattering technology offers very low-power wireless communication by enabling such devices to piggyback their data on the RF signals of other devices, instead of generating and transmitting their own signals, which may eliminate the need for an active transmitter and power-hungry RF components and enabling backscatter devices to communicate on a very low energy budget” as suggested by Dasala in paragraph [0025], for example.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser (US 10,104,525 B1) and Lei (US 2023/0030446 A1), in view of Pham (US 2026/0080726 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kaiser and Lei does not explicitly disclose wherein the information received from the passive device comprises maintenance-related information.
However, Pham teaches wherein the information received from the passive device comprises maintenance-related information (In paragraph [0028], Pham teaches an augmented reality vehicle diagnostic and repair system including a mobile device is suitably comprised of a smartphone, tablet, intelligent OBD [onboard diagnostic] dongle, or any other suitable portable data device; in paragraph [0048], Pham teaches that a VCI [vehicle communication interface] device, such as dongle 312, collects vehicle information to identify the particular vehicle, as well as streaming data, DTCs [diagnostic trouble codes], and other data available through the vehicle VCI port, where information from the VCI is suitably transmitted to a data device by one or more of Bluetooth, cellular, Wi-Fi, or a physical USB connection; in paragraph [0056], Pham teaches that a user connects a mobile app on their data device to a vehicle VCI, suitably wirelessly with an OBD dongle).
Pham is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to obtaining maintenance-related information from a vehicle at an external user device such as a smartphone. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Pham with the system as disclosed by the combination of Kaiser and Lei, where doing so improves access to maintenance-related information of the vehicle, for example, “assist[ing] end users in diagnosing, locating, and addressing vehicle issues” as suggested by Pham in paragraph [0025].
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kaiser and Lei does not explicitly disclose wherein the passive device is in communication with an on-board diagnostics port.
However, Pham teaches wherein the passive device is in communication with an on-board diagnostics port (In paragraph [0028], Pham teaches an augmented reality vehicle diagnostic and repair system including a mobile device is suitably comprised of a smartphone, tablet, intelligent OBD [onboard diagnostic] dongle, or any other suitable portable data device; in paragraph [0048], Pham teaches that a VCI [vehicle communication interface] device, such as dongle 312, collects vehicle information to identify the particular vehicle, as well as streaming data, DTCs [diagnostic trouble codes], and other data available through the vehicle VCI port, where information from the VCI is suitably transmitted to a data device by one or more of Bluetooth, cellular, Wi-Fi, or a physical USB connection; in paragraph [0056], Pham teaches that a user connects a mobile app on their data device to a vehicle VCI, suitably wirelessly with an OBD dongle).
Pham is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to accessing diagnostics data of a vehicle at an external user device such as a smartphone. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Pham with the non-transitory computer readable media as disclosed by the combination of Kaiser and Lei, where doing so improves access to maintenance-related information of the vehicle, for example, “assist[ing] end users in diagnosing, locating, and addressing vehicle issues” as suggested by Pham in paragraph [0025].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser (US 10,104,525 B1) and Lei (US 2023/0030446 A1), in view of Pham (US 2026/0080726 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Lei further teaches wherein the application provides a notification regarding the geographic area associated with the first vehicle (In paragraph [0081], Lei teaches virtually presenting a road condition of the vehicle, other vehicles nearby, VRUs, and other information to assist in decision making, such as displaying the road condition of the vehicle, other vehicles nearly, VRUs, and other information).
The combination of Kaiser and Lei does not explicitly disclose wherein the application provides a notification at an interface of another mobile device regarding the geographic area associated with the first vehicle.
However, Yamada teaches wherein the application provides a notification at an interface of another mobile device regarding the geographic area associated with the first vehicle (In paragraphs [0050-0054], Yamada teaches that the CPU 18A transmits the detected own vehicle position information to the server 14, issues a car model map acquisition request to the server 14, and displays the car model map received from the server 14 on the monitor 20, for example, a car model map in which vehicles A to G of the same car model are marked on a map is displayed on the monitor 20; in paragraphs [0060-0064], Yamada teaches that the CPU 40A stores the position information received from the vehicle-mounted device 12 in the vehicle information DB 42, in correspondence with the identification information of the vehicle-mounted device 12, determines whether or not the vehicle-mounted device 12 has issued the car model map request, extracts the vehicles that satisfy a criterion, and transmits the car model map of the extracted vehicles to the requestor vehicle-mounted device 12; in paragraph [0082], Yamada teaches that ).
Yamada is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to notifying other mobile devices of the location of a vehicle. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Yamada with the non-transitory computer readable media as disclosed by the combination of Kaiser and Lei, where doing so may advantageously improve the understanding of a user to their surroundings by providing additional access to information on vehicles in the surroundings, increasing safety and awareness of the user of the another mobile device for example.
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 Harrison Heflin whose telephone number is (571)272-5629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 1:00PM - 10:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/HARRISON HEFLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights