Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 4, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21, 39 and 40 has/have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 31, 33, 35, 37 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guba et al. (US-9,338,605) in view of Wu et al. (US-9,427,592), Grokop et al. (US-9,305,317), Tamari et al. (US-9,298,575) and Wanami (US-9,108,583).
In regards to claim 21, Guba teaches a vehicle tag comprising a processor configured to awaken from a sleep state (first operating state) to awaken state (a second operating state) in response to detecting a movement event based on one or more acceleration values [fig. 1 element 75, fig. 4 elements 410 and 415, col. 15 L. 10-16, col. 24 L. 9-15]. Also, Guba teaches that the first operating state is a lower-power state relative to the second operating state [col. 15 L. 10-16, col. 24 L. 9-15]. Furthermore, Guba teaches that the movement event is associated with a vehicle in which the vehicle tag is located [fig. 3 element 75, fig. 4 element 415, col. 15 L. 10-16, col. 24 L. 9-15]. Guba also teaches while in the second operating state, the tag can sense and store/log acceleration data when a mobile device is not available for communications [col. 8 L. 32-35 and L. 47-54, col. 12 L. 49-53, col. 23 L. 65-67, col. 24 L. 1-6 and L. 17-20]. This teaching means when the tag functions in the second operating state, acceleration data can be logged before establishing wireless communication with the mobile device. In other words, the processor is configured, while in the second operating state and prior to establishing a wireless connection with a mobile device that is separate from the vehicle tag, to log acceleration data associated with the vehicle over a period of time.
Guba teaches that the logged data is transmitted to the mobile device when the mobile device is available for communications [col. 8 L. 32-35 and L. 47-54, col. 12 L. 49-53, col. 23 L. 65-67, col. 24 L. 1-6 and L. 17-20] .This teaching means that the processor is configured, while in the second operating state and prior to establishing a wireless connection with a mobile device that is separate from the vehicle tag, to try establishing the wireless connection with the mobile device over the period of time. However, Guba does not teach that the establishing of the wireless connection is done by broadcasting one or more wireless advertisements.
On the other hand, Wu teaches that a device can establish a connection between the device and a mobile device by advertising its presence periodically. [col. 2 L. 4-12]. This teaching means that the device establishes wireless communication with the mobile device by broadcasting one or more wireless advertisements over the period of time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Wu’s teachings of establishing a wireless communication by broadcasting one or more wireless advertisements in the tag taught by Guba because it will permit the tag to communicate with the mobile device in a secure manner.
The combination of Guba and Wu teaches when the wireless connection is established with the mobile device, the tag is configured to transmit the logged acceleration data to the mobile device [see Guba col. 8 L. 32-35 and L. 47-54, col. 12 L. 49-53, col. 23 L. 65-67, col. 24 L. 1-6 and L. 17-20]. This teaching means that the processor in response to establishing the wireless connection with the mobile device, transitions from the second operating state to a third operating state; and while in the third operating state, transmits the acceleration data logged during the second operational state to the mobile device via the wireless connection.
The combination teaches that the processor is configured to awaken from the first operating state to the second operating state in response to detecting the movement event based on one or more acceleration values [see Guba col. 15 L. 10-16, col. 24 L. 9-15]. However, the combination does not teach that the motion event is a driving event.
On the other hand, Grokop teaches that a device used to sense motion of a vehicle can be configured to awaken its processor from the first operating state to the second operating state in response to detecting a driving event based on the one or more acceleration values [col. 4 L. 60-67, col. 5 L. 1, col. 8 L. 15-33].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Grokop’s teachings of waking up the device when a driving event is detected in the tag taught by the combination because it will permit the tag to conserve power when the vehicle is not in use.
The combination of Guba, Wu and Grokop teaches that the vehicle tag is configured to sense a motion characteristic of the vehicle in which the vehicle tag is located [see Guba fig. 1 element 75, col. 12 L. 33-42, col. 15 L. 31-44] and generate motion data for the vehicle based on the sensed motion characteristic [see Guba col. 15 L. 31-44].
The combination further teaches that motion data can be used to detect several movements of the vehicle including rapid deceleration and sharp braking and can be also be used for collision management [see Guba col. 15 L. 39-41, col. 40 L. 6-10]. However, the combination does not teach that a potential vehicle crash is detected using at least one of one or more acceleration components.
On the other hand, Tamari teaches that a tag can be configured to derive one or more acceleration components from the motion data, and to determine a potential vehicle crash based on a magnitude of acceleration [fig. 1 element 104 (tag), col. 2 L. 47-50 (tag), col. 4 L. 26-31 (potential crash), col. 7 L. 56-64 (acceleration components), col. 10 L. 34-37 (tag), col. 11 L. 9-13 (potential crash)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Tamari’s teachings of using motion data to derive acceleration and detect a potential vehicle crash in the tag taught by the combination because it will permit the system to detect a potential collision of the vehicle and use the motion data related to the potential collision for collision management.
The combination of Guba, Wu, Grokop and Tamari teaches that the tag is configured to derive from the motion data one or more acceleration components and determine a potential vehicle crash based on a magnitude of acceleration satisfying a predetermined threshold [see Tamari col. 4 L. 26-31 (potential crash), col. 7 L. 56-64 (acceleration components), col. 10 L. 34-37 (tag), col. 11 L. 9-13 (potential crash)]. However, the combination does not explicitly teach that the collision is determined using the one or more acceleration components.
On the other hand, Wanami teaches that a collision can be determined by deriving one or more acceleration components from motion data and by determining that a magnitude of at least one of the acceleration components satisfies a predetermined threshold [col. 3 L. 54-64, col. 5 L. 63-67, col. 6 L. 1-3 and L. 16-20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Wanami’s teachings of detecting a collision using the acceleration components of the motion data in the tag taught by the combination because it will permit the tag to determine a potential collision with greater accuracy.
The combination of Guba, Wu, Grokop, Tamari and Wanami teaches that motion data is transmitted via the wireless connection to the mobile device which transmits the motion data to the server [see Guba col. 15 L. 39-41, col. 16 L. 31-35]. Also, the combination teaches that the motion data transmitted to the server can include motion data related to the potential vehicle crash [see Tamari col. 2 L. 34-42, col. 6 L. 37-48, col. 7 L. 56-64, col. 10 L. 8-13, col. 11 L. 9-13, col. 12 L. 24-31 and L. 46-52]. These teachings means that the tag is configured to transmit at least a portion of the motion data associated with the potential vehicle crash to the mobile device via the wireless connection.
In regards to claim 22, the combination of Guba, Wu, Grokop, Tamari and Wanami, as applied in the rejection of claim 21 above, further teaches that the one or more acceleration components comprise an acceleration component in a direction vertical to the vehicle (direction of gravity) and an acceleration component in a direction horizontal to the vehicle (direction perpendicular to gravity) [see Tamari col. 7 L. 56-64, see Wanami col. 5 L. 63-67, col. 6 L. 1-3, col. 6 L. 16-20].
In regards to claim 31, the combination of Guba, Wu, Grokop, Tamari and Wanami, as applied in the rejection of claim 21 above, further teaches that the motion data is generated by one or more of an accelerometer, gyroscope, and position sensor of the vehicle tag [see Guba col. 14 L. 52-53, see Tamari col. 3 L. 21-24, col. 7 L. 41-44].
In regards to claim 33, the combination of Guba, Wu, Grokop, Tamari and Wanami, as applied in the rejection of claim 21 above, further teaches that the tag can be configured to upload the stored motion data to a server via network for further analysis [see Tamari fig. 1 elements 112 (server) and 114 (network), col. 3 L. 9-14, col. 5 L. 18-25, col. 6 L. 37-48, col. 7 L. 56-64, col. 10 L. 8-13]. Also, the combination teaches that the data is uploaded to the server via the mobile device using the wireless connection [see Guba col. 16 L. 31-35]. These teachings mean that the vehicle tag is configured to use the wireless connection to transmit information related to the motion data to the mobile device for forwarding to a server.
In regards to claim 35, the combination of Guba, Wu, Grokop, Tamari and Wanami, as applied in the rejection of claim 33 above, further teaches that the tag can establish a connection between the tag and a mobile device by accepting a connection request initiated from the mobile device in response to the tag advertising its presence via the one or more wireless advertisements [see Wu col. 2 L. 4-12].
In regards to claim 37, the combination of Guba, Wu, Grokop, Tamari and Wanami, as applied in the rejection of claim 21 above, further teaches that the tag stores information about events derived from the motion data generated by the vehicle tag, wherein the events comprise events associated with at least one of motion of the vehicle, collisions or crashes of the vehicle, or unexpected movements of the vehicle tag with respect to the vehicle [see Guba col. 15 L. 39-41, col. 24 L. 17-20, see Tamari col. 3 L. 7-9, col. 4 L. 26-30, L. 65-67, col. 5 L. 1-5, col. 10 L. 8-13].
In regards to claim 39, the combination of Guba, Wu, Grokop, Tamari and Wanami, as shown in the rejection of claim 21 above, teaches a tag performing the claimed functions. Therefore, the combination also teaches the claimed method.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guba et al. (US-9,338,605) in view of Wu et al. (US-9,427,592), Grokop et al. (US-9,305,317), Tamari et al. (US-9,298,575) and Wanami (US-9,108,583) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Li (US-9,216,341).
In regards to claim 23, the combination of Guba, Wu, Grokop, Tamari and Wanami, as applied in the rejection of claim 22 above, does not teach that the direction of gravity is determined using a low-pass filter over acceleration data sensed by the vehicle tag.
On the other hand, Li teaches that the direction of gravity can be determined using a low-pass filter over sensed acceleration data [col. 8 L. 10-12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Li’s teachings of using a low pass filter to obtain the direction of gravity in the tag taught by the combination because it will permit the tag to obtain the direction of gravity in an easy manner based on the sensed acceleration data.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guba et al. (US-9,338,605) in view of Wu et al. (US-9,427,592), Grokop et al. (US-9,305,317), Tamari et al. (US-9,298,575) and Wanami (US-9,108,583) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Rittler et al. (US-2014/0379222).
In regards to claim 24, the combination of Guba, Wu, Grokop, Tamari and Wanami, as applied in the rejection of claim 21 above, does not teach that the potential vehicle crash is determined based on the magnitude of at least one of the one or more acceleration components satisfying a predetermined threshold for a predetermined time period.
On the other hand, Rittler teaches that that collision can be determined when a component of acceleration exceeds a threshold for a predetermined period of time [par. 0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Rittler’s teachings of using a predetermined period of time to determine a collision in the tag taught by the combination because it will permit the tag to detect potential collisions more accurately.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guba et al. (US-9,338,605) in view of Wu et al. (US-9,427,592), Grokop et al. (US-9,305,317), Tamari et al. (US-9,298,575) and Wanami (US-9,108,583) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Baranowski et al. (US-7,564,357).
In regards to claim 30, the combination of Guba, Wu, Grokop, Tamari and Wanami, as applied in the rejection of claim 21 above, does not teach that the vehicle tag comprises a light sensor, and wherein the vehicle tag is configured to detect a tampering event based on data from the light sensor.
On the other hand, Baranowski teaches that tag can detect removal of the tag using data sensed by an optical/light sensor [abstract L. 2-7, col. 5 L. 55-60]. This teaching means that the tag comprises a light sensor, and wherein the tag is configured to detect a tampering event based on data from the light sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Baranowski’s teachings of having a light sensor to detect removal of the tag in the tag taught by the combination because it will permit the system to know when the tag has been removed without authorization.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guba et al. (US-9,338,605) in view of Wu et al. (US-9,427,592), Grokop et al. (US-9,305,317), Tamari et al. (US-9,298,575) and Wanami (US-9,108,583) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Cresto (US-2008/0231446) and Gutierrez et al. (US-2015/0177362).
In regards to claim 32, the combination of Guba, Wu, Grokop, Tamari and Wanami, as applied in the rejection of claim 21 above, does not teach that the tag is identifiably associated with the vehicle.
On the other hand, Cresto teaches that a system can associate a vehicle with a tag by interaction of a user with a user interface, and that the user interface can be shown in the mobile device [par. 0037 L. 1-4, 14-19 and 25-30 (associate a tag with a vehicle using a user interface), par. 0038 L. 10-13 (mobile device)]. This teaching means that the tag becomes identifiably associated with the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filling date of the claimed invention, to use Cresto’s teachings of associating the tag with the vehicle using the mobile device in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the user to let the server know in which vehicle the tag has been placed.
The combination of Guba, Wu, Grokop, Tamari, Wanami and Cresto teaches that the vehicle tag is configured to become identifiably associated with the vehicle by a device electronically reading a tag in the vicinity [see Cresto par. 0037 L. 25-30]. However, the combination does not teach that electronically reading a tag in the vicinity comprises the device electronically reads the tag in the vicinity by searching for tags in a vicinity of the device.
On the other hand, Gutierrez teaches that tags can be read electronically by the mobile device by receiving advertising messages from nearby tags [par. 0095 L. 1-5]. This teaching means that the mobile device electronically reads tags in the vicinity by searching for tags in a vicinity of the mobile device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Gutierrez’s teachings of electronically reading tags by searching for tags in the vicinity in the tag taught by the combination because it will permit the device to read tags in the vicinity in a wireless manner.
Also, the combination of Guba, Wu, Grokop, Tamari, Wanami, Cresto and Gutierrez further teaches that a user can indicate a link between a tag in the vicinity of the mobile device and the vehicle [see Cresto par. 0037 L. 1-4, L. 8-11, L. 14-19 and L. 25-30, par. 0038 L. 10-13]. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the mobile device communicates information about the link between the vehicle tag and the vehicle to the server [see Cresto fig. 1, par. 0028 L. 6-11, par. 0030 L. 3-7, par. 0035 L. 1-11, par. 0037 L. 1-4, L. 8-11, L. 14-19 and L. 25-30, par. 0038 L. 10-13].
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guba et al. (US-9,338,605) in view of Wu et al. (US-9,427,592), Grokop et al. (US-9,305,317), Tamari et al. (US-9,298,575) and Wanami (US-9,108,583) as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Fraser et al. (US-2015/0045983).
In regards to claim 34, the combination of Guba, Wu, Grokop, Tamari and Wanami, as applied in the rejection of claim 33 above, does not teach that information communicated by the vehicle tag to the server is supplemented with data generated by the mobile device.
On the other hand, Fraser teaches that the mobile device can augment the data received from the tag with data from sensors in the mobile device and transmit the augmented data to the server [par. 0059, par. 0062 L. 3-6]. This teaching means that the information communicated by the tag to the mobile device is supplemented by the mobile device with data generated by the mobile device prior to forwarding to the server.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Fraser’s teachings of augmenting the data of the tag with data sensed by the device in the tag taught by the combination because it will permit the system to more detailed information about the potential vehicle crash.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guba et al. (US-9,338,605) in view of Wu et al. (US-9,427,592), Grokop et al. (US-9,305,317), Tamari et al. (US-9,298,575) and Wanami (US-9,108,583) as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Gutierrez et al. (US-2015/0177362) and Cresto (US-2008/0231446).
In regards to claim 36, the combination of Guba, Wu, Grokop, Tamari and Wanami, as applied in the rejection of claim 35 above, does not teach that the vehicle tag is specified in configuration data as one with which the application or other process running on the mobile device is permitted to establish the wireless connection.
On the other hand, Gutierrez teaches that a user can select a tag to communicate with the mobile device using the mobile device, and that the mobile device authenticates the tag [par. 0095 L. 1-3, par. 0100 L. 1-5]. This teaching means that the tag is specified in configuration data as one with which the application or other process running on the device is permitted to establish the connection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Gutierrez’s teachings of permitting a user to select a tag that can communicate with the device in the tag taught by the combination because it will permit the tag to communicate with the device in a secure manner.
The combination Guba, Wu, Grokop, Tamari, Wanami and Gutierrez does not teach that the configuration data is stored on the server.
On the other hand, Cresto teaches that the mobile device communicates information about the link between the vehicle tag and the vehicle to the server [see Cresto fig. 1, par. 0028 L. 6-11, par. 0030 L. 3-7, par. 0035 L. 1-11, par. 0037 L. 1-4, L. 8-11, L. 14-19 and L. 25-30, par. 0038 L. 10-13]. This teaching means that the configuration data specifying that the mobile device can establish wireless connection with the tag is stored at the server.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Cresto’s teachings of storing the configuration data at the server in the tag taught by the combination because a server has more memory capacity and it will permit the system to manage all tags from a central location.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guba et al. (US-9,338,605) in view of Wu et al. (US-9,427,592), Grokop et al. (US-9,305,317), Tamari et al. (US-9,298,575) and Wanami (US-9,108,583) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Ljung et al. (US-9,820,016).
In regards to claim 38, the combination of Guba, Grokop, Goldberg, Tamari and Wanami, as applied in the rejection of claim 21 above, teaches that the tag is configured to transmit information for delivery to a server [see Guba col. 16 L. 31-35]. However, the combination does not teach that the information is transmitted along with at least one of an identity of the vehicle tag, an identity of a user of the vehicle tag, an identity of a user of a device through which the network is available, an identity of a user of an application or other process running on the device, or an identity of the application or other process running on the device.
On the other hand, Ljung teaches that sensor data of a tag can be transmitted with an identity of the tag to a device that will forward the sensor data and the identity of the tag to a server [fig. 1B element 106, col. 6 L. 48-61, col. 7 L. 15-22].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Ljung’s teachings of transmitting the identity of the tag with the sensor data in the tag taught by the combination because it will permit the server to know from which tag the sensor data is received.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guba et al. (US-9,338,605) in view of Wu et al. (US-9,427,592) and Grokop et al. (US-9,305,317).
In regards to claim 40, Guba teaches a vehicle tag comprising a processor and memory to perform its operations [fig. 3 element 75, fig. 4 elements 410 and 420]. This teaching means that the tag comprises a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium bearing instructions executable by vehicle tag to cause the vehicle tag to performs its operations. Furthermore, Guba teaches that the operations comprise transitioning from a sleep state (first operating state) to awaken state (a second operating state) in response to detecting a movement event based on one or more acceleration values [fig. 1 element 75, fig. 4 elements 410 and 415, col. 15 L. 10-16, col. 24 L. 9-15]. Also, Guba teaches that the first operating state is a lower-power state relative to the second operating state [col. 15 L. 10-16, col. 24 L. 9-15]. Furthermore, Guba teaches that the movement event is associated with a vehicle [fig. 3 element 75, fig. 4 element 415, col. 15 L. 10-16, col. 24 L. 9-15]. Guba also teaches while in the second operating state, the tag can sense and store/log acceleration data when a mobile device is not available for communications [col. 8 L. 32-35 and L. 47-54, col. 12 L. 49-53, col. 23 L. 65-67, col. 24 L. 1-6 and L. 17-20]. This teaching means when the tag functions in the second operating state, acceleration data can be logged before establishing wireless communication with the mobile device. In other words, the operations comprises, while in the second operating state and prior to establishing a wireless connection with a mobile device that is separate from the vehicle tag, logging acceleration data associated with the vehicle over a period of time.
Guba teaches that the logged data is transmitted to the mobile device when the mobile device is available for communications [col. 8 L. 32-35 and L. 47-54, col. 12 L. 49-53, col. 23 L. 65-67, col. 24 L. 1-6 and L. 17-20] .This teaching means that the operations comprises, while in the second operating state and prior to establishing a wireless connection with a mobile device that is separate from the vehicle tag, trying establishing the wireless connection with the mobile device over the period of time. However, Guba does not teach that establishing the wireless connection is done by broadcasting one or more wireless advertisements.
On the other hand, Wu teaches that a device can establish a connection between the device and a mobile device by advertising its presence periodically. [col. 2 L. 4-12]. This teaching means that the device establishes wireless communication with the mobile device by broadcasting one or more wireless advertisements over the period of time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Wu’s teachings of establishing a wireless communication by broadcasting one or more wireless advertisements in the tag taught by Guba because it will permit the tag to communicate with the mobile device in a secure manner.
The combination of Guba and Wu further teaches when the wireless connection is established with the mobile device, the tag is configured to transmit the logged acceleration data to the mobile device [see Guba col. 8 L. 32-35 and L. 47-54, col. 12 L. 49-53, col. 23 L. 65-67, col. 24 L. 1-6 and L. 17-20]. This teaching means that operations include, in response to establishing the wireless connection with the mobile device, transitioning from the second operating state to a third operating state; and while in the third operating state, transmitting the acceleration data logged during the second operational state to the mobile device via the wireless connection.
The combination teaches that the operations include transitioning from the first operating state to the second operating state in response to detecting the movement event based on one or more acceleration values [see Guba col. 15 L. 10-16, col. 24 L. 9-15]. However, the combination does not teach that the motion event is a driving event.
On the other hand, Grokop teaches that a device used to sense motion of a vehicle can be configured to awaken its processor from the first operating state to the second operating state in response to detecting a driving event based on the one or more acceleration values [col. 4 L. 60-67, col. 5 L. 1, col. 8 L. 15-33].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Grokop’s teachings of waking up the device when a driving event is detected in the tag taught by the combination because it will permit the tag to conserve power when the vehicle is not in use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 25-29 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.
In regards to claim 25, the prior art cited in this office action does not teach either by anticipation or combination the following limitations: determine an orientation of the vehicle tag with respect a frame of reference of the vehicle; and detect a tampering event based on changes in the orientation.
In regards to claims 26-29, the claims would be allowable due to their dependency on claim 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST 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, 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights