DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 21-40 are pending.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-25, 27-29, 31, 32, 34-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Santora et al. [US 20180215344].
As to claim 21. Santora discloses A method for vehicle state monitoring via a computing device of a user, the method comprising:
receiving, by the computing device of the user, [fig. 3, 0058] user mobile device 300, a security event indication for the vehicle, [0058] impact information sent to the mobile device, when the vehicle is in a locked state, [0120] system armed when the vehicle is locked, wherein the security event indication corresponds to sensor data of the vehicle, [figs. 2, 4, 0037, 0051] data from sensors 28;
generating a notification based on the security event indication, [0098] user device presented with information about the event; and
presenting, via the computing device of the user, the generated notification, thereby alerting the user of the security event indication for the vehicle, [0098, 0099] user receives a text message including information about the event.
As to claim 22. Santora discloses The method of claim 21, wherein: the received security event indication comprises a geographic location of the vehicle, [0059]; and the generated notification comprises an indication of the geographic location of the vehicle, [0099].
As to claim 23. Santora discloses The method of claim 21, wherein the security event indication indicates at least one of: a bump event indicated by the sensor data of the vehicle, [0099] impact level; or movement of the vehicle relative to a geofence indicated by the sensor data of the vehicle.
As to claim 24. Santora discloses The method of claim 21, further comprising: receiving a user actuation of the notification; and in response to the user actuation, displaying, via the computing device, a geographic location of the vehicle, [0099] user receives a text message; which is displayed when the user selects the message to view the message.
As to claim 25. Santora discloses The method of claim 21, further comprising: prior to receiving the security event indication: receiving, via the computing device, user input to lock the vehicle, [0120]; and in response to the received user input, providing an indication to the vehicle to enter the locked state, [0120] system enters armed state when the user locks the vehicle.
As to claim 27. Santora discloses The method of claim 21, wherein the security event indication of the vehicle is received by the computing device from a vehicle platform, [fig.1, 0060] remote server, wherein the vehicle platform is in communication with the vehicle, [0060].
As to claim 28. Santora discloses A vehicle controller, comprising:
at least one processor, [fig. 6, 0076] microprocessor 320; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the vehicle controller to perform a set of operations, [fig. 6, 0076, 0121] memory 310, the set of operations comprising:
determining to enter a security event alerting mode, [0120] enter armed state; and
in the security event alerting mode:
obtaining sensor data from a movement sensor of the vehicle, [figs. 2, 4, 0037, 0051, 0056] data from sensors 28;
processing the sensor data to determine whether to generate a security event indication, [0056, 0058] impact information sent to the mobile device; and
when it is determined to generate a security event indication, transmitting the security event indication to a remote computing device, [0058, 0098] user device presented with information about the event, thereby alerting a user of the vehicle to a security event for the vehicle, [0099].
As to claim 29. Santora discloses The vehicle controller of claim 28, wherein determining to enter the security event alerting mode comprises identifying a parking trigger of the vehicle, [0081, 0120].
As to claim 31. Santora discloses The vehicle controller of claim 28, wherein the security event indication comprises a geographic location for the vehicle, [0099].
As to claim 32. Santora discloses The vehicle controller of claim 31, wherein the set of operations further comprises determining the geographic location for the vehicle in response to determining to generate the security event indication, [0082].
As to claim 34. Santora discloses The vehicle controller of claim 28, wherein the movement sensor of the vehicle is an accelerometer, [0051].
As to claim 35. Santora discloses The vehicle controller of claim 28, wherein transmitting the security event indication to a remote computing device causes the remote computing device to relay the security event indication to a computing device of the user, [0060].
As to claim 36. Santora discloses The vehicle controller of claim 28, wherein the remote computing device is a computing device of the user, [0058].
As to claim 37. Santora discloses A method of processing sensor data of a vehicle to generate a security event indication, the method comprising:
receiving, from the vehicle, sensor data for a sensor of the vehicle, [figs. 2, 4, 0037, 0051, 0056] data from sensors 28;
processing the sensor data to identify a security event, [0056, 0058] impact information sent to the mobile device; and
in response to identifying the security event:
generating a security event indication, [0058, 0098] user device presented with information about the event; and
transmitting the security event indication to a computing device of a user of the vehicle, [0098, 0099] user receives a text message including information about the event.
As to claim 38. Santora discloses The method of claim 37, wherein processing the sensor data to identify the security event comprises processing movement indicated by the sensor data using a predetermined threshold to determine the movement is a bump event for the vehicle, [0057, 0079, 0097].
As to claim 39. Santora discloses The method of claim 38, wherein the security event indication comprises: an indication of the bump event for the vehicle, [0079]; and a geographic location of the vehicle that corresponds to the bump event, [0097, 0098].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 26, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santora in view of Wells et al. [US 20210233198].
As to claim 26. Santora fails to disclose The method of claim 21, further comprising: receiving, in response to the generated notification, user input to cause the vehicle to produce an audible alert; and in response to the user input, providing an indication to the vehicle to produce the audible alert.
Wells teaches a vehicle state compliance determination system comprising a server 140 to monitor the state of the vehicle 120 while the vehicle is parked, including unauthorized movement of the vehicle, [0013]; wherein the server 140 sends a notification to a user mobile device 110 when an event is detected, [0028]; wherein the server 140 sends an instruction to the vehicle 120 to sound out an audible alert when the event is detected, [0013]; wherein the functionality of the server can be implemented using the mobile device 110, [0011].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santora with that of Wells so that the user can deter thieves by attracting attention to the vehicle.
As to claim 33. Santora fails to disclose The vehicle controller of claim 28, further comprising: receiving, from the remote computing device and in response to the security event indication, an indication to produce an audible alert; and in response to the received indication, producing the audible alert.
Wells teaches a vehicle state compliance determination system comprising a server 140 to monitor the state of the vehicle 120 while the vehicle is parked, including unauthorized movement of the vehicle, [0013]; wherein the server 140 sends a notification to a user mobile device 110 when an event is detected, [0028]; wherein the server 140 sends an instruction to the vehicle 120 to sound out an audible alert when the event is detected, [0013]; wherein the functionality of the server can be implemented using the mobile device 110, [0011].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santora with that of Wells so that the user can deter thieves by attracting attention to the vehicle.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santora in view of Grimm et al. [US 2190147744].
As to claim 30. Santora fails to disclose The vehicle controller of claim 28, wherein determining to enter the security event alerting mode comprises receiving an indication to enter the security event alerting mode from a computing device of the user.
Grimm teaches a remote park assist system to monitor a vehicle security while the vehicle is parked, [0035]; wherein the system can be activated remotely from a user mobile phone, [0035].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santora with that of Grimm so that the user can have the option to activate the system remotely incase the user forgot to activate the system while at the vehicle.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santora in view of Mitchell et al. [US 11007979].
As to claim 40. Santora fails to disclose The method of claim 37, wherein processing the sensor data to identify the security event comprises processing a geographic location indicated by the sensor data using a geofence to determine the vehicle crossed the geofence.
Mitchell teaches a vehicle theft detection system wherein the system determines the vehicle’s 14 current location and compares it to the vehicle’s current location to determine if an event is detected; wherein if the distance between the vehicles parked location and the current detected location is above a predetermined threshold, a theft score is sett to one, [fig. 4, col. 7, lines 50-59].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santora with that of Mitchell so that the system can avoid false positives due to GPS drift.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights