0Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the communication filed on 10/27/25.
Claims 23 – 42 are pending.
All objections and rejections not set forth below have been withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/27/25 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered:
… a network controller… configured to:
receive a first signal …
configure the received first signal in accordance with a Bluetooth communication protocol … in response to determining that the received first signal has one or more requirements that are compatible with the Bluetooth communication network …
…
receive a second signal …
configure the received second signal in accordance with a WiFi communication protocol … in response to determining that the received second signal has one or more requirements that are compatible with the WiFi communication network …
…
Specifically, the applicant’s original drawings do not illustrate the distinct configurations of signals (i.e. “first” signal vs “second” signal) based upon differing compatibility requirements between wireless networks (i.e. a “Bluetooth” vs. “WiFi”).
Instead, the applicant’s specification essentially discloses wireless networks as equivalents in the purpose for transmitting signals (i.e. multimedia) which are not transmitted from critical vehicle components which require high quality, reliability, and speed.
“… the network selector 2036 determines the … requirements of the signal … … and selects the compatible network able to currently best satisfy the requisite signal parameters. For example, a signal from a critical component generally is transmitted by a local wired network 808, such as a bus, due to the high signal quality, reliability and/or transmission speed required for the signal. A multimedia signal would generally not be transmitted by a local wired network as it is not commonly incompatible with the signal payload. Such a signal would more typically be transmitted by a local wireless network 812 (e.g., by Bluetooth™ or WiFi™ or a “hot spot”) …” (e.g. see specification par. 253).
Thus, applicant teaches making a selection between wired networks for critical vehicle network signals and wireless (i.e. WiFi, Bluetooth, etc.) networks for multimedia signals.
Furthermore, the applicant’s original drawings clearly illustrate this fact, wherein the a requirement of the signal is shown to be the basis for selecting between a wired network and a wireless network (e.g. “local wired network” 808 and a “local wireless network” 812 (e.g. see fig. 8; par. 259, 260).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
… a network controller… configured to:
receive a first signal …
configure the received first signal in accordance with a Bluetooth communication protocol … in response to determining that the received first signal has one or more requirements that are compatible with the Bluetooth communication network …
…
receive a second signal …
configure the received second signal in accordance with a WiFi communication protocol … in response to determining that the received second signal has one or more requirements that are compatible with the WiFi communication network …
…
See claims 23 and similarly recited claim 33.
Specifically, the applicant’s original disclosure does not teach distinct configurations of signals (i.e. “first” signal vs “second” signal) based upon differing compatibility requirements between wireless networks (i.e. a “Bluetooth” vs. “WiFi”).
Furthermore, the applicant fails to disclose “…requirements that are compatible with the Bluetooth…” and “…requirements that are compatible with the WiFi…”.
Instead, the applicant’s specification essentially discloses wireless networks as equivalents in the purpose for transmitting signals (…A multimedia signal would generally not be transmitted by a local wired network as it is not commonly incompatible with the signal payload. Such a signal would more typically be transmitted by a local wireless network 812 (e.g., by Bluetooth™ or WiFi™ …).
In other words, the applicant clearly teaches each of Bluetooth and WiFi to be equally compatible with the transmission of signals. The applicant never discusses specific “requirements” of Bluetooth networks or specific requirements of WiFi networks such that would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to understand what types of signals, e.g. multimedia signals, that should be transmitted by one wireless network versus that of another wireless network. Additionally, the applicant never discloses differently configuring signals in response to determining that a signal has requirements that are compatible with one of a Bluetooth network versus that of a WiFi network.
The examiner points out that the only clear disclosure of distinct signal “requirements that are compatible” with differing networks, is that of determining whether a signal is to be transmitted by a wired network versus that of a wireless network. The applicant clearly teaches that signals transmitted from critical vehicle components are to be transmitted by wired networks while multimedia signals should be transmitted by wireless (Bluetooth or WiFi) networks:
“… the network selector 2036 determines the … requirements of the signal … … and selects the compatible network able to currently best satisfy the requisite signal parameters. For example, a signal from a critical component generally is transmitted by a local wired network 808, such as a bus, due to the high signal quality, reliability and/or transmission speed required for the signal. A multimedia signal would generally not be transmitted by a local wired network as it is not commonly incompatible with the signal payload. Such a signal would more typically be transmitted by a local wireless network 812 (e.g., by Bluetooth™ or WiFi™ or a “hot spot”) …” (e.g. see specification par. 253).
Furthermore, the applicant’s original drawings clearly illustrate this fact, wherein the a requirement of the signal is shown to be the basis for selecting between a wired network and a wireless network (e.g. “local wired network” 808 and a “local wireless network” 812 (e.g. see fig. 8; par. 259, 260).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23 – 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
See above objection to the specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23 – 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 23 and 33, the recitations of “… requirements that are compatible with the Bluetooth communication network …” and “… requirements that are compatible with the WiFi communication network …” render the scope of the claims indefinite.
Specifically, it is not clear as to what constitute signal “requirements that are compatible” with either one of a Bluetooth network or a WiFi network. One of ordinary skill in the art would not readily apprehend what distinctions, if any, exist between signals requirements compatible with Bluetooth versus signal requirements compatible with WiFi. There is no standard in the art for determining whether a signal has requirements compatible with Bluetooth or whether the signal has requirements compatible with WiFi.
Furthermore, the applicant’s disclosure never teaches any specific compatibility requirements of Bluetooth networks or that of WiFi networks. Instead, as was shown within the Specification objection and 112 first paragraph rejections above, the applicant essentially disclosed each of Bluetooth and WiFi networks as equally suitable for wirelessly transmitting the same signal.
Thus, it is not clear as to the scope of claim recitations directed towards determining signal requirements compatible with either a WiFi or Bluetooth network and configuring a signal in response to such determination.
Depending claims are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 (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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 23 – 42 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. (Campbell), US 2010/0097239 A1 in view of Balog et al. (Balog), US 2002/0022453 A1.
Regarding claim 23, Campbell discloses:
A vehicle (e.g. Campbell, fig. 1), comprising:
an input/output system (e.g. Campbell, fig. 1:106; fig. 3:104, 106, 108, 128, 126, 130, 120 – a vehicle system 106 that includes I/O means; see also fig. 22:2202, 2126, 2122; par. 134-138) configured to receive input from a user of the vehicle and to present output to the user of the vehicle (e.g. Campbell, fig. 3:126, 108, 104, 130);
a wireless interface (e.g. Campbell, fig. 3:120, 128, 130; par. 5, 47, 59) configured to wirelessly communicate with a mobile phone (e.g. Campbell, fig. 6:116; par. 43, 59, 60) located within the vehicle (e.g. Campbell, fig. 5; fig. 6; par. 59, 60),
wherein the wireless interface is configured to support wireless communication with the mobile phone over a plurality of short range wireless communication networks including a Bluetooth communication network and a WiFi communication network (e.g. Campbell, fig. 7; par. 47, 68, 69 – the wireless interface can communicate with a mobile phone over a variety of wireless communication protocols, including Wi-fi and Bluetooth);
and a network controller (e.g. Campbell, fig. 7:106; fig. 20:2002; fig. 21; par. 69, 122-125, 132 – controller and software) in electrical communication with the input/output system and the wireless interface (e.g. Campbell, fig. 20), the network controller configured to:
receive a first signal from the input/output system (e.g. Campbell, par. 43, 45, 47, 69; fig. 4:118, 144, 154);
configure the received first signal in accordance with a Bluetooth communication protocol to be used for wireless transmissions over the Bluetooth communication network (e.g. Campbell, par. 47, 68, 83, 136, 137).
Campbell discloses a vehicle system comprising means to configure a signal, e.g. streaming media from a remote server, according to a Bluetooth communication protocol, so as to deliver the signals to a connected mobile phone within the vehicle.
However, Campbell does not appear to explicitly teach that the specific transmission protocol to the mobile phone is employed in response to determining compatibility “requirements” of the signal and network.
However, Balog discloses a system for transmitting signals to a mobile phone (e.g. Balog, Abstract), and furthermore teaches that the specific transmission protocol (e.g. Bluetooth or WiFi) to the mobile phone is employed in response to determining the protocol most suitable for delivering the signals to the mobile phone, i.e. compatibility “requirements” of the signal and network (e.g. Balog, par. 21, 24, 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the teachings of Balog for determining the requirements of data delivery and choosing the appropriate wireless protocol transmission within the system of Campbell. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the teachings that the delivery of data to a mobile phone is efficiently performed when the protocol requirements of the signal (e.g. content) being transmitted is first considered so as to select the best suited means of data transmission to a mobile phone (e.g. Balog, par. 28).
Thus, the combination enables:
…wherein the configuring of the received first signal occurs in response to determining that the received first signal has one or more requirements that are compatible with the Bluetooth communication network (e.g. Campbell, par. 64, 69; e.g. Balog, par. 28);
cause the wireless interface to wirelessly transmit the configured first signal to the mobile phone over the Bluetooth communication network in accordance with the Bluetooth communication protocol (e.g. Campbell, Campbell, par. 64, 69; e.g. Balog, par. 28);
receive a second signal from the input/output system (e.g. Campbell, par. 45 – a variety of different types of signals, i.e. “first”, “second”, “third”, etc…, can be received or input to the vehicle system);
configure the received second signal in accordance with a WiFi communication protocol to be used for wireless transmissions over the WiFi communication network (e.g. Campbell, par. 47, 66, 89), wherein the configuring of the received second signal occurs in response to determining that the received second signal has one or more requirements that are compatible with the WiFi communication network (e.g. Campbell, Campbell, par. 47, 64, 69; e.g. Balog, par. 21, 28, 30);
and cause the wireless interface to wirelessly transmit the configured second signal to the mobile phone over the WiFi communication network in accordance with the WiFI communication protocol (e.g. Campbell, par. 47, 66, 89; e.g. Balog, par. 21, 28, 30).
Regarding claim 24, the combination enables:
wherein the mobile phone is configured to access a remote node (e.g. Campbell, fig. 4:154; fig. 6:116; par. 59; par. 5, 45, 47).
Regarding claim 25, the combination enables:
wherein the remote node is a server located remotely from the vehicle (e.g. Campbell, fig. 4:154; par. 65, 59, 67, 68).
Regarding claim 26, the combination enables:
further comprising a media controller in electrical communication with the input/output system and the wireless interface (e.g. Campbell, par. 5, 41, 43, 45, 47), the media controller configured to: receive a third signal wirelessly transmitted from the mobile phone to the wireless interface (e.g. Campbell, par. 5, 41, 43, 70, 71, 73, 74, 83 – 86, 91 - 94 – “third signals”, e.g. navigation data, text messages, phone calls, music can be input from the mobile phone to the vehicle system);
and cause data associated with the third signal to be presented via the input/output system (e.g. Campbell, par. 5, 41, 43, 70, 71, 73, 74, 83 – 86, 91 – 94).
Regarding claim 27, the combination enables:
wherein the data associated with the third signal includes multimedia data (e.g. Campbell, par. 5, 41, 43, 70, 71, 73, 74, 83 – 86, 91 – 94).
Regarding claim 28, the combination enables:
wherein the data associated with the third signal includes audio data (e.g. Campbell, par. 5, 41, 43, 70, 71, 73, 74, 83 – 86, 91 – 94).
Regarding claim 29, the combination enables:
wherein the data associated with the third signal is accessed by the mobile phone from a remote node and thereafter carried to the wireless interface (e.g. Campbell, par. 5, 47) as part of the third signal that is wirelessly transmitted from the mobile phone to the wireless interface (e.g. Campbell, par. 5, 41, 43, 70, 71, 73, 74, 83 – 86, 91 – 94).
Regarding claim 30, the combination enables:
wherein the remote node is a server located remotely from the vehicle (e.g. Campbell, fig. 4:154).
Regarding claim 31, the combination enables:
wherein the data associated with the third signal includes multimedia data (e.g. Campbell, par. 5, 41, 45, 47, 43, 70, 71, 73, 74, 83 – 86, 91 – 94).
Regarding claim 32, the combination enables:
wherein the data associated with the third signal includes audio data (e.g. Campbell, par. 5, 41, 43, 70, 71, 73, 74, 83 – 86, 91 – 94).
Regarding claims 33 – 42, they are method claims essentially corresponding to the claims above, and they are rejected, at least, for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues or alleges essentially that the claimed “network controller” configured to configure first and second signals in response to determining signal “requirements that are compatible” with Bluetooth and Wifi networks is fully supported by applicant’s original disclosure (e.g. see Remarks, pg. 10 – 38).
Examiner respectfully responds:
The examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that the applicant’s original disclosure fails to teach any specific signal requirements belonging to each of Bluetooth and WiFi networks, and fails to teach configuring a signal according to either one of Bluetooth or WiFi protocols in response to determining any such “requirements”.
Instead, the applicant’s original disclosure essentially teaches each of Bluetooth and WiFi protocols to be equivalents as to any requirements for the transmission of a signal (e.g. Specification, par. 253), and that the selection or distinction of signals requirements is made between wired and wireless networks in general (e.g. Specification, fig. 8).
The balance of Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7965. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 571-272-3739. 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.
/JEFFERY L WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495