Detailed Action
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, 37 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guba et al. (US-9,338,605) in view of Grokop et al. (US-9,305,317), Goldberg et al. (US-8,144,027), Tamari et al. (US-9,298,575) and Wanami (US-9,108,583).
In regards to claim 21, Guba teaches a vehicle tag configured sense motion characteristic of a vehicle in which the vehicle tag is located [fig. 1 element 75, col. 12 L. 33-42, col. 15 L. 31-44]. Guba teaches that the tag is configured to generate motion data for the vehicle based on the sensed motion characteristic [col. 15 L. 31-44].
Also, Guba teaches the tag is configured to awaken a processor of the vehicle tag from a lower-power state to a higher-power state based on one or more acceleration values [fig. 4 element 410, col. 14 L. 48-49, col. 15 L. 10-18]. However, Guba does not teach that the one or more acceleration values are due to 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 a lower power state to a higher power state in response to detecting a driving event based on 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 and Grokop teaches that the processor can establish a wireless connection to a mobile device that is separate from the tag [see Guba col. 16 L. 31-35]. Also, the combination teaches that the processor of the tag can be awaken from a lower power state to a higher power state when a driving event is detected [see Grokop col. 4 L. 60-67, col. 5 L. 1, col. 8 L. 15-33]. However, the combination does not teach that the wireless connection with the mobile device is established upon the processor entering the high power state.
On the other hand, Goldberg teaches that a device transmitting data can establish wireless communication with a receiver of the data upon its processor entering a higher power state [abstract L. 9-14 col. 9 L. 5-6 and L. 9-10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Goldberg’s teachings of establishing wireless communication upon the processor entering a higher power state in the tag taught by the combination because it will permit the tag to be ready to transmit its data to the mobile device once the processor is in a higher power state thereby reducing the consumption of power.
The combination of Guba, Grokop and Goldberg 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, from the motion data, one or more acceleration components, 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)]. Also, Tamari teaches that the tag is configured to store at least a portion of the motion data associated with the potential vehicle crash in storage of the vehicle tag [col. 3 L. 7-9, col. 4 L. 65-67, col. 5 L. 1-5, col. 10 L. 8-13, col. 11 L. 9-13].
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, Grokop, Goldberg 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 on 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.
In regards to claim 22, the combination of Guba, Grokop, Goldberg, 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, Grokop, Goldberg, 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, Grokop, Goldberg, 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 37, the combination of Guba, Grokop, Goldberg, 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, Grokop, Goldberg, 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.
In regards to claim 40, the combination of Guba, Grokop, Goldberg, Tamari and Wanami, as shown in the rejection of claim 21 above, teaches a tag performing the claimed functions. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the tag performs the claimed functions using a processor and memory [see Guba fig. 4 elements 410 and 420, see Tamari, col. 17 L. 18-25]. This teaching means that the claimed functions are implemented using a non-transitory computer readable medium bearing instructions executable by the vehicle tag.
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 Grokop et al. (US-9,305,317), Goldberg et al. (US-8,144,027), 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, Grokop, Goldberg, 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 Grokop et al. (US-9,305,317), Goldberg et al. (US-8,144,027), 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, Grokop, Goldberg, 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 Grokop et al. (US-9,305,317), Goldberg et al. (US-8,144,027), 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, Grokop, Goldberg, 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 Grokop et al. (US-9,305,317), Goldberg et al. (US-8,144,027), 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, Grokop, Goldberg, 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, Grokop, Goldberg, 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, Grokop, Goldberg, 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 Grokop et al. (US-9,305,317), Goldberg et al. (US-8,144,027), 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, Grokop, Goldberg, 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) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guba et al. (US-9,338,605) in view of Grokop et al. (US-9,305,317), Goldberg et al. (US-8,144,027), Tamari et al. (US-9,298,575) and Wanami (US-9,108,583) as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US-9,427,592).
In regards to claim 35, the combination of Guba, Grokop, Goldberg, Tamari and Wanami, as applied in the rejection of claim 33 above, further teaches that the tag uses the established wireless connection between the tag and the mobile device to communicate the stored at least the portion of the motion data to an application or other process running on the mobile device, for forwarding to the server [see Guba col. 16 L. 31-35, see Tamari col. 6 L. 37-48, col. 10 L. 8-13]. However, the combination does not teach how the tag establishes the wireless connection with the mobile device.
On the other hand, Wu teaches that a device can establish a connection between the device and a mobile device by accepting a connection request initiated from the mobile device in response to the device advertising its presence [col. 2 L. 4-12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Wu’s teachings of establishing a connection with the device by accepting a connection request in the tag taught by the combination because it will permit the tag to communicate with the device in a secure manner.
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 Grokop et al. (US-9,305,317), Goldberg et al. (US-8,144,027), Tamari et al. (US-9,298,575), Wanami (US-9,108,583) and Wu et al. (US-9,427,592) 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, Grokop, Goldberg, Tamari, Wanami and Wu, 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, Grokop, Goldberg, Tamari, Wanami, Wu 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 Grokop et al. (US-9,305,317), Goldberg et al. (US-8,144,027), 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.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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