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 .
This action is in response to the filing of 10/31/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant submitted an Information Disclosure Statement on 1/15/2025 that comprises large number of references [more than a thousand]. It is not clear why all these references require citation with respect to the disclosed and claimed subject matter. Moreover, the sheer number of references burdens the record as to which references are or may be material to which claims. It is impractical for the examiner to review the references thoroughly with the number of references cited in the case. By initialing/signing the cited references on the accompanying 1449 forms, the examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and merely indicating that only a cursory review is made of the cited references. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.105 and MPEP 704.11(a) subsection (P), it is reasonable to require other factual information pertinent to patentability. In light of the extraordinary number of cited references by applicant, as noted above, it is reasonable to require additional factual information, e.g. explanation as to how each cited reference is pertinent to the claimed limitations in the pending application, so that the most relevant citations are fully considered. A simple statement that each of the references is relevant will not be sufficient. If applicant deems certain of the references cited to not be relevant, applicant should submit a new IDS containing only references that are pertinent to the examination of this application.
An applicant's duty of disclosure of material and information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant [material] from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical [material]. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work." Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573 [220 USPQ 289] (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) (Emphasis in original). Patent applicant has a duty not just to (disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art; See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1801 (N.D Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1889, at 1899 (D.Del. 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 USPQ 260, at 272 (S.D. FI- 1972).
Double Patenting
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1+3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,832,241. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims is/are broader than the above mentioned patent claims; for instance present claim 1 is/are anticipated by claim 1+3 of the U.S. Patent No. 9,832,241.
Present claims
U.S. Patent No. 9,832,241 claims
1. A computer-implemented method of analyzing abnormal traffic conditions, the method comprising:
receiving, via one or more processors, sensor data regarding a vehicle operating environment from one or more sensors disposed within the vehicle operating environment;
determining, via the one or more processors, occurrence of an abnormal traffic condition in the vehicle operating environment based upon the sensor data;
identifying, via the one or more processors, one or more vehicles approaching the vehicle operating environment; and
transmitting, via the one or more processors, a wireless electronic message to the one or more vehicles, wherein the wireless electronic message includes an alert indicating a location and type of the abnormal traffic condition.
1. A computer-implemented method of generating and broadcasting telematics data, the method comprising:
(1) generating telematics data that is sampled by one or more sensors or meters of an originating mobile computing device when the one or more sensors or meters indicates that the originating mobile computing device is stationary with respect to an originating vehicle and is located within the originating vehicle, the originating mobile computing device: (i) having a Telematics Application (App) installed or stored locally in a non-transitory computer-readable memory unit, and (ii) being associated with a driver of the originating vehicle, the telematics data including acceleration, braking, speed, compass heading, and location-related data associated with an operation of the originating vehicle;
(2) periodically generating, via the originating mobile computing device or the Telematics App, an updated telematics data broadcast including up-to-date telematics data; and
(3) broadcasting, via a transceiver under the direction or control of the originating mobile computing device or the Telematics App, the updated telematics data via wireless communication or data transmission to a destination mobile computing device that is associated with a destination vehicle or a driver,
wherein the destination mobile computing device or the destination vehicle receives the telematics data and the destination mobile computing device directs corrective actions based upon a determined relevance of an identified anomaly via a telematics application executed on the destination mobile computing device by causing the destination mobile computing device to alert the destination vehicle or driver of an abnormal traffic condition or event that the originating vehicle is experiencing, and to display insurance policy pricing adjustment information associated with the driver that is based upon a driver risk due to the identified anomaly, so as to promote or reward risk averse behavior and safer driving via the displayed insurance policy pricing adjustment information, and
wherein the relevance of the identified anomaly is determined based upon whether a location of the originating vehicle as determined based upon the telematics data is within a threshold distance of a current location of the destination mobile computing device or the destination vehicle.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the telematics data further includes deceleration, Global Positioning System (GPS) location, and lane information associated with the originating vehicle.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3,7,10-13,19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,805,601 in view of Albornoz (US 2015/0310742) and Ricci (US 2016/0189544). The U.S. Patent 9,805,601 claims 1+3 and 11+13 discloses all of the subject matter of present claim 1 and 9 respectively, except for specifically teaching receiving sensor data regarding a vehicle operating environment from one or more sensors disposed within the vehicle operating environment. However, Albornoz in the same field of endeavor discloses a vehicular safety system and method where receiving sensor data regarding a vehicle operating environment from one or more sensors disposed within the vehicle operating environment (figures 1-2 [sensors shown]; para 6,39, para 64-66 [sensors]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Albornoz in U.S. Patent 9,805,601 claims, in order to generate vehicle alerts by incorporating sensors disposed withing vehicle to provide traffic safety system based on the generation of collective intelligence through an adaptive epidemic information spread protocol for safety of the driver and passengers and other road users (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
U.S. Patent 9,805,601 claims disclose all of the subject matter of present claims 7 and 14, except for specifically teaching determining a route for one or more vehicles. However, Ricci (US 2016/0189544) in the same field of endeavor discloses a vehicular data for traffic where determining a route for one or more vehicles (figures; para 6,39; para 102,103,109,110; para 124,125, and throughout). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Ricci in U.S. Patent 9,805,601 claims, in order to collect vehicle data and generation of updated mapping and traffic information for safety of the driver and passengers and other road users (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Present claims
U.S. Patent No. 9,805,601 claims in view of Albornoz
1. A computer-implemented method of analyzing abnormal traffic conditions, the method comprising:
receiving, via one or more processors, sensor data regarding a vehicle operating environment from one or more sensors disposed within the vehicle operating environment;
determining, via the one or more processors, occurrence of an abnormal traffic condition in the vehicle operating environment based upon the sensor data;
identifying, via the one or more processors, one or more vehicles approaching the vehicle operating environment; and
transmitting, via the one or more processors, a wireless electronic message to the one or more vehicles, wherein the wireless electronic message includes an alert indicating a location and type of the abnormal traffic condition.
Claim 2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Claim 9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
1. A computer-implemented method of generating a vehicle-to-vehicle traffic alert, the method comprising:
detecting, via one or more processors, that an abnormal traffic condition exists in an operating environment of a vehicle;
generating, via the one or more processors, an electronic message regarding the abnormal traffic condition;
transmitting, via a vehicle-mounted transceiver associated with the vehicle, the electronic message to a nearby vehicle, wherein the electronic message is transmitted via wireless communication to alert the nearby vehicle of the abnormal traffic condition and to allow the nearby vehicle to avoid the abnormal traffic condition; and
updating a risk aversion profile associated with a vehicle operator of the nearby vehicle based upon the electronic message, wherein the risk aversion profile is associated with a travel environment for the nearby vehicle, the travel environment including at least an environment where the nearby vehicle has traveled two or more times.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the abnormal traffic condition is bad weather and the electronic message indicates a GPS location of the bad weather. [bad weather is type]
Claim 2.
3.
7.
in view of Albornoz.
Claim 10 in view of Albornoz.
In view of Ricci.
Claim 10 [ignores message] in view of Albornoz.
Claims 11+13. in view of Albornoz.
12.
19.
in view of Albornoz.
13 in view of Albornoz.
In view of Ricci.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3,7-8,10-13,19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,019,901 in view of Albornoz (US 2015/0310742) and Ricci (US 2016/0189544). For instance, U.S. Patent 10,019,901 claim 1+3 and 11+13 discloses all of the subject matter of present claim 1 and 9 respectively, except for specifically teaching receiving sensor data regarding a vehicle operating environment from one or more sensors disposed within the vehicle operating environment. However, Albornoz in the same field of endeavor discloses a vehicular safety system and method where receiving sensor data regarding a vehicle operating environment from one or more sensors disposed within the vehicle operating environment (figures 1-2 [sensors shown]; para 6,39, para 64-66 [sensors]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Albornoz in U.S. Patent 10,019,901 claims, to generate vehicle alerts by incorporating sensors disposed withing vehicle to provide traffic safety system based on the generation of collective intelligence through an adaptive epidemic information spread protocol for safety of the driver and passengers and other road users (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
U.S. Patent 10,019,901 claims disclose all of the subject matter of present claims 7 and 14, except for specifically teaching determining a route for one or more vehicles. However, Ricci (US 2016/0189544) in the same field of endeavor discloses a vehicular data for traffic where determining a route for one or more vehicles (figures; para 6,39; para 102,103,109,110; para 124,125, and throughout). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Ricci in U.S. Patent 10,019,901 claims, in order to collect vehicle data and generation of updated mapping and traffic information for safety of the driver and passengers and other road users (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Similarly Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,325,491 in view of Albornoz (US 2015/0310742), and Ricci (US 2016/0189544), for similar reasoning and analysis as discussed above.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,748,419 in view of Albornoz (US 2015/0310742), and Ricci (US 2016/0189544), for similar analysis as discussed above.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,450,206 in view of Albornoz (US 2015/0310742), and Ricci (US 2016/0189544), for similar analysis as discussed above.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,159,317 in view of Albornoz (US 2015/0310742), and Ricci (US 2016/0189544), for similar analysis as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,2,5,9,10,12,15,16,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticiapted by Albornoz (US 2015/0310742).
Regarding claim 1:
Albornoz discloses a system and computer-implemented method of analyzing abnormal traffic conditions (see figures; and abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, via one or more processors, sensor data regarding a vehicle operating environment from one or more sensors disposed within the vehicle operating environment (figures 1-2 [see sensors]; para 64-66 [sensors]);
determining, via the one or more processors, occurrence of an abnormal traffic condition in the vehicle operating environment based upon the sensor data (para 3, partially reproduced herein with emphasis {.. vehicular safety, in order to alert traffic authorities and road users about situations that compromise driver and passenger safety, or generate a road hazard such as stolen/hijacked vehicles, dangerous driving, burning vehicles or collisions}; para 9 {collaborative traffic safety system .. messages provide information about events that compromise the safety of drivers and passengers, or represent a hazard to other road users..}; para 48);
identifying, via the one or more processors, one or more vehicles approaching the vehicle operating environment (para 74 { send different messages to traffic approaching}; para 79 {These messages 403 can be received by broadcasting nodes 301, by listening nodes 405, or by neighbouring vehicles 404. Here, “neighbouring vehicles” refers to vehicles equipped to participate in an ad-hoc network …}; see figures); and
transmitting, via the one or more processors, a wireless electronic message to the one or more vehicles, wherein the wireless electronic message includes an alert indicating a location and type of the abnormal traffic condition (para 9; fig 1 [transceiver]; fig 4 [V2V communication]; para 35; para 77-79 {transmit these messages in order to alert other drivers }; 906 in fig 9; and see throughout the disclosure).
Regarding claim 9:
Albornoz discloses all of the subject matter as described above in claim 1, and further discloses a computer system comprising: one or more processors (fig 1-2 [120,200]); and a non-transitory program memory storing executable instructions (210 in fig 2; throughout the disclosure) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to perform the function as described above, thus claim 9 is rejected with similar rationale under the teachings of the prior art as discussed above.
Regarding claim 15:
Albornoz discloses all of the subject matter as described above in claim 1, and further discloses a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions when executed by at least one processor of a computer system (figure 1-2; para 111-122; and throughout), cause the computer system to perform the function as described above, thus claim 15 is rejected with similar rationale under the teachings of the prior art as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 2,10,16:
Albornoz discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the abnormal traffic condition is one or more of the following [note: optional claim language]: an erratic vehicle, an erratic driver, road construction, a closed highway exit, slowed or slowing traffic, slowed or slowing vehicular congestion, or one or more other vehicles braking ahead of a vehicle (para 9,48,77; and throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 5,12,18:
Albornoz discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the sensor data comprises data from one or more infrastructure sensor devices within the vehicle operating environment (as shown in figures 1-2 [sensors are within vehicle]; and see throughout).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3,4,6,7,11,13,14,17,19,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albornoz (US 2015/0310742) in view of Ricci (US 2016/0189544).
Regarding claim 3:
Albornoz discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching that the type of the abnormal traffic condition is a hazardous weather condition.
However, Ricci in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for vehicle data collection where the type of the abnormal traffic condition is a hazardous weather condition (para 97 [location based service including weather]; para 24,26,102; figures; and see throughout).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Ricci in Albornoz in order to provide system for updating mapping and traffic information with communication to other vehicles for prompting safety [para6] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claims 4,11,17:
Albornoz discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching that sensor data comprises vehicle telematics data from one or more additional vehicles within the vehicle operating environment.
However, Ricci in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for vehicle data collection where sensor data comprises vehicle telematics data from one or more additional vehicles within the vehicle operating environment (para 73 [monitoring sensors, vehicle-to-vehicle interactions, telematics]; para 109 [communication with other vehicles]; figures; and see throughout).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Ricci in Albornoz in order to provide system for updating mapping and traffic information with communication to other vehicles for prompting safety [para6] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claims 6,13,19:
Albornoz discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching that determining a location and direction of travel for each of the one or more vehicles.
However, Ricci in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for vehicle data collection where determining a location and direction of travel for each of the one or more vehicles (para 112 [location, direction]; figures; and see throughout).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Ricci in Albornoz in order to provide system for updating mapping and traffic information with communication to other vehicles for prompting safety [para6] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claim 7,14,20:
Albornoz discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching that determining a route for each of the one or more vehicles.
However, Ricci in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for vehicle data collection where determining a route for each of the one or more vehicles (para 7 [collecting route, location information]; para 14,102; para 112 [location, direction]; figures; and see throughout).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Ricci in Albornoz in order to provide system for updating mapping and traffic information with communication to other vehicles for prompting safety [para6] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albornoz (US 2015/0310742) in view of Ricci (US 2016/0189544) and further in view of Noh (US 2015/0170522).
Regarding claim 8:
Albornoz discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching that [1] determining a direction of travel or route of each of the one or more additional vehicles indicates such additional vehicle is not approaching the location of the abnormal traffic condition; [2] identifying, via the one or more processors, one or more additional vehicles within a threshold distance of the location of the abnormal traffic condition; and suppressing, via the one or more processors, transmission of the wireless electronic message to the one or more additional vehicles.
However, Ricci in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for vehicle data collection wherein [1] determining a direction of travel or route for each of the one or more vehicles indicates such additional vehicle is not approaching the location of the abnormal traffic condition (para 7 [collecting route, location information]; para 68 [distance, trajectory, path of other vehicles]; para 14,102; para 112 [location, travelling in wrong direction]; figures; and see throughout).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Ricci in Albornoz in order to provide system for updating mapping and traffic information with communication to other vehicles for prompting safety [para6] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results).
However, Noh in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for vehicle data collection where [2] identifying, via the one or more processors, one or more additional vehicles within a threshold distance of the location of the abnormal traffic condition; and suppressing, via the one or more processors, transmission of the wireless electronic message to the one or more additional vehicles (para 54,55 [position of event occurrence, is less than threshold then display warning, essentially otherwise no warning or ignores]; figures; and see throughout the disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Noh in Albornoz in order to provide real time communication of traffic information and prevention of accident and improve traffic flow (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patsiokas et al. (US 2017/0032402) discloses a system and method for enhanced V2V communication including satellite radio.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIRDEPAL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1688. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Hannah S Wang can be reached on (571) 272-9018. 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.
/HIRDEPAL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights