DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the initial filing dated October 22, 2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites “the data format and a communication protocol translator module” where the “a” appears unnecessary. The function of the claimed module is “to convert data files and the communication protocol to a common format and a common communication protocol.” Therefore, it appears as though one module processes both the data format and the communication protocol. Therefore, claim 19 is interpreted as “the data format and communication protocol translator module” as one limitation instead of “the data format” and “a communication protocol translator module” as two limitations. The specification supports this interpretation at paragraphs [0268] and [0277].
Appropriate correction is required.
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 or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) 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(s) is/are: the data format and a communication protocol translator module to convert data files in claim 19.
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.
According to the Superguide decision, the language of “at least one of x, y, and z” is to be interpreted according to its plain meaning of “at least one of x, at least one of y, and at least one of z”. This interpretation carries over to the language of “one or more of” and “one of”. The claims are given this interpretation, unless stated otherwise.
Claims 1, 15, and 20 recite “at least one parameter related to at least one of a condition of the vehicle seat, a health and wellness of an occupant of the vehicle, and the connector being configured to facilitate gathering of the information”. Given its plain meaning according to the Superguide decision, the limitation in the claims should be interpreted as at least one parameter related to at least one of a condition of the vehicle seat, at least one of a health and wellness of an occupant of the vehicle, and at least one of the connector being configured to facilitate gathering of the information. However, it is not clear what parameter relates to all three of the condition of a vehicle seat, the health and wellness of the occupant, and the connector being configured to facilitate gathering of information. Therefore, the claim is interpreted in the alternative as at least one parameter related to at least one of a condition of the vehicle seat, a health and wellness of an occupant of the vehicle, or the connector being configured to facilitate gathering of the information.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the vehicle seat comprises at least one of a front facing car seat, a rear facing car seat, a child car seat, a pet car seat, and a booster seat.” Given its plain meaning according to the Superguide decision, the limitation in the claims should be interpreted as wherein the vehicle seat comprises at least one of a front facing car seat, at least one of a rear facing car seat, at least one of a child car seat, at least one of a pet car seat, and at least one of a booster seat. However, this interpretation does not make sense. Therefore, the claim is interpreted in the alternative as the vehicle seat comprises at least one of a front facing car seat, a rear facing car seat, a child car seat, a pet car seat, or a booster seat
Claim 10 recites “wherein the mobile device belongs to at least one of a medical facility provider, an emergency contact, and a nearby vehicle owner.” Given its plain meaning according to the Superguide decision, the limitation in the claims should be interpreted as wherein the mobile device belongs to at least one of a medical facility provider, at least one of an emergency contact, and at least one of a nearby vehicle owner. However, this interpretation does not make sense. Therefore, the claim is interpreted in the alternative as wherein the mobile device belongs to at least one of a medical facility provider, an emergency contact, or a nearby vehicle owner.
Claim 14 recites “a request received at the central server by one of a vehicle infotainment system and a mobile device”. Given its plain meaning according to the Superguide decision, the limitation in the claims should be interpreted as a request received at the central server by one of a vehicle infotainment system and one of a mobile device. However, this interpretation does not make sense as it is unclear how a single request is from both the vehicle infotainment system and the mobile device. Therefore, the claim is interpreted in the alternative as a request received at the central server by one of a vehicle infotainment system or a mobile device.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the mobile device belongs to at least one of a medical facility provider, an emergency contact, and a nearby vehicle owner.” Given its plain meaning according to the Superguide decision, the limitation in the claims should be interpreted as wherein the mobile device belongs to at least one of a medical facility provider, at least one of an emergency contact, and at least one of a nearby vehicle owner. However, this interpretation does not make sense. Therefore, the claim is interpreted in the alternative as wherein the mobile device belongs to at least one of a medical facility provider, an emergency contact, or a nearby vehicle owner.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the protocol is one of a hospital transmission protocol, a related patient monitoring protocol, and a standard Health Information Technology (HIT) protocol based on a Health Level 7 (HL7) protocol.” Given its plain meaning according to the Superguide decision, the limitation in the claims should be interpreted as wherein the protocol is one of a hospital transmission protocol, one of a related patient monitoring protocol, and one of a standard Health Information Technology (HIT) protocol based on a Health Level 7 (HL7) protocol. However, this interpretation does not make sense. Therefore, the claim is interpreted in the alternative as wherein the protocol is one of a hospital transmission protocol, a related patient monitoring protocol, or a standard Health Information Technology (HIT) protocol based on a Health Level 7 (HL7) protocol.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitations "the system" and “the data format” in lines 1 and 2, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Although claim 18, in line 1, refers to “a particular data format”, the recitation of “the data format” in line 2 does not appear to refer to the “particular data format” since, conceptually, line 1 states that the system is not tied to a particular format and line 2 states the system may be customized to the data format. If the claim is interpreted as line 2 referring to the “particular data format”, then the claim would say that the system is not tied to a particular data format and the system may be customized to the particular data format. This would not make sense. Therefore, for purposes of examination, line 2 is interpreted as customizing to any data format.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the data format and a communication protocol translator module” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, as seen above, claim 19 is interpreted according to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) due to the recitation of “the data format and a communication protocol translator module to convert…”. The specification does not define corresponding structure. This limitation is presented in paragraphs [0268] and [0277] of the specification. Further, paragraph [0075] states that program modules include routines, programs, components, data structures, and or the like, but does not define corresponding structure. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained and claim 19 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-2, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-2, 14, and 19, respectively, of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,134,388. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,134,388. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
As to claim 4, depending from the system of claim 1, US Patent #12,134,388 claims wherein the image sensor is rotatable at an angle to get an image (Claim 5).
As to claim 14, depending from the system of claim 1, US Patent #12,134,388 claims wherein the transmission to the application occurs in response to a request received at the central server by one of a vehicle infotainment system and a mobile device, requesting data gathered by the sensor (Claim 13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-13, and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 1, 15, and 20, the prior art does not teach, suggest, or render obvious wherein the secure data message generated using the protocol comprises one or more of: a vehicle information, a location of the vehicle, an information related to the occupant, a health parameter, a seating detail of the occupant, a pre-health condition detail of the occupant, an allergy detail of the occupant, an emergency contact detail, other occupants of the vehicle, and a type of medical emergency detected (as seen previously in the parent application, now US Patent #12,134,388 of which double patenting rejections are made).
As outlined above, this limitation is interpreted according to the Superguide decision, such that it is given its plain meaning interpretation of wherein the secure data message generated using the protocol comprises one or more of: a vehicle information, one or more of a location of the vehicle, one or more of an information related to the occupant, one or more of a health parameter, one or more of a seating detail of the occupant, one or more of a pre-health condition detail of the occupant, one or more of an allergy detail of the occupant, one or more of an emergency contact detail, one or more of other occupants of the vehicle, and one or more of a type of medical emergency detected.
With respect to the remaining subject matter of independent claims 1, 15, and 20, the closest art of record is:
Orris et al. (Orris; US PG Pub #2019/0215672) teach a system, wherein the system is configured to be a component of a vehicle (Paragraph [0019] teaches a system 100 of a vehicle 102), a method (Paragraph [0068] teaches processes and methods), and a non-transitory computer storage medium storing a sequence of instructions, which when executed by a processor (Paragraphs [0017] and [0020]);
wherein the system comprising:
a sensor (Paragraph [0025] teaches a plurality of sensors);
an image sensor (Paragraph [0045] teaches a camera);
a connector (Paragraph [0024] teaches wireless or wired communication; Paragraph [0032] teaches an in-vehicle network);
a communication module (Paragraph [0032] teaches a telematics control unit with wireless modem); and
a processor (Paragraph [0020]); and
wherein the processor is configured to:
detect a vehicle seat in the vehicle;
establish a secured connection with the vehicle seat through the connector (Paragraph [0028] teaches installing a car seat in a vehicle including pairing the seat so that the result is that the seat is found and the sensor information is available);
receive a first data from the sensor and a second data from the image sensor through the connector (Paragraph [0026] teaches the seat sending collected signals to the vehicle computing platform; Paragraph [0045] teaches using a camera to detect the presence of a conscious adult), the first data and the second data being indicative of an information gathered regarding at least one parameter related to at least one of a condition of the vehicle seat (Paragraph [0028] teaches indicating the seat is found and available sensor information), a health and wellness of an occupant of the vehicle (Paragraph [0025] teaches various health measurements of an occupant; Paragraph [0045] teaches determining a conscious adult), and the connector being configured to facilitate gathering of the information (Paragraph [0028] teaches indicating the seat is found and available sensor information); and
transmit the first data and the second data in real time via the communication module to an application installed in a central server thereon, the application being configured to facilitate receipt of the first data and the second data from the central server (Paragraph [0032] teaches uploading sensor data to a server; Paragraph [0017] teaches any number of microprocessors, integrated circuits, memory and software co-acting to perform operations and a computer program embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium that is programmed to perform functions).
In addition to the identified allowable subject matter, Orris does not explicitly teach the processor configured to encode the first data and the second data by identifying protected health information for transmission of a secure data message using a protocol.
Breed et al. (Breed; US PG Pub #2002/0140215) teach the processor (Paragraph [0089] teaches a processor coupled to detectors for obtaining information from signals from the detectors) configured to encode the first data and the second data by identifying protected health information for transmission of a secure data message using a protocol (Paragraph [0198] teaches forming data sets from transducer signals and identification and information about the occupant; Paragraph [0117] teaches sending the health state of the occupant to a remote site; Paragraphs [0177] and [0190] teach a cellular phone system or other telematics communication device establishing communication with one or more remote facilities).
However, Orris and Breed do not render obvious the claimed subject matter. Therefore, independent claims 1, 15, and 20 contain allowable subject matter and would be in condition for allowance once the identified rejections are addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jouper et al. (US PG Pub #2019/0308579) teach a control and communications unit (CCU) (Paragraph [0009]) which is a data collection hub for seat structure sensors that sends a command to a sensor which sends an acknowledge message in return (Paragraph [0047])
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN W SHERWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-8:00, 9:00-3:00 and 4:00-5:00 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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571.270.1210. 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.
/RYAN W SHERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688