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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0009]: “The vehicles of the vehicle fleet each generate signal data…” Does this mean “Each vehicle of the vehicle fleet generates signal data…”
[0017]: “ a message to an occupant of the at least one vehicle”: examiner cannot see how an occupant can be in more than one vehicle.
[0019]: “the signal quality of the wireless network” [Wingdings font/0xE0] shouldn’t this be “the signal quality of the terrestrial wireless network”?
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: line 5: “the measurement location” should probably be “each measurement location”. (“the measurement location” is lacking antecedent basis since this is the first instance of a single measurement location being mentioned; see below.)
Claim 1: clause € “carrying out, via he navigation system” should be “carrying out, via the navigation system”.
Claim 5: two mentions of “a driving route” are made. Are these different driving routes or the same? For purposes of examination, it is assumed that the routes are the same.
Claim 6: the last line contains “a driving route of the at least one vehicle”. Is this the same route as is in claim 5 (on which claim 6 depends) or a new route? For purposes of examination, it is assumed that the routes are the same.
Claim 12: (lines 7-8): “…a position of the measurement location..” would be better as “…a position of each measurement location…”
Claim 12: (line 9): “…each generate signal data…” needs to be fixed. It is assumed that this should be “…each vehicle generates signal data…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation “the measurement location” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that this means “each measurement location.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the transmitting vehicle" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The only mention of transmission is later on in the clause, when signal data is being transmitted to a backend.
(Claims 2-11 are also rejected under 112b due to their dependence upon claim 1).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the transmitting vehicle" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The only mention of transmission is later on in the clause, when signal data is being transmitted to a backend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA CHRISTINE SIENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3912. 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.
/TANYA C SIENKO/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664