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 4/30/26.
Claims 23 – 42 are pending.
All objections and rejections not set forth below have been withdrawn.
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 … the received first signal having a first required signal format … determining that the first required signal format is compatible with at least one of the plurality of short range wireless communication networks …
…
receive a second signal … the received second signal having a second required signal format … determining that the second required signal format is compatible with at least one of the plurality of short range wireless communication networks …
…
Specifically, applicant’s drawings do not illustrate a network controller configuration to perform a selection between a plurality of short range wireless networks based distinct determinations of a “first required signal format” and a “second required signal format”.
Instead, the applicant’s specification essentially discloses that short range wireless networks are 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 short range 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).
Specifically, the applicant’s original drawings (e.g. Fig. 8) illustrate a network controller configuration that selects between the general categories of a wired network or a short range wireless network based upon a determination (e.g. Fig. 8:804) of the compatibility the signal format to a category of network (e.g. Specification, par. 252; fig. 8:808 vs 812 vs 816).
Essentially, applicant teaches a network controller configuration for making a selection between wired networks for critical vehicle network signals and short range wireless (i.e. WiFi, Bluetooth, etc.) networks for multimedia signals.
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 … the received first signal having a first required signal format … determining that the first required signal format is compatible with at least one of the plurality of short range wireless communication networks …
…
receive a second signal … the received second signal having a second required signal format … determining that the second required signal format is compatible with at least one of the plurality of short range wireless communication networks …
…
…
See claims 23 and similarly recited claim 33.
Specifically, the applicant’s original disclosure does not teach a distinct “first required signal format” and a distinct “second required signal format” for two different short range wireless networks (e.g. a “Bluetooth” network vs. “WiFi” network). Additionally, the applicant fails to disclose a network controller configuration to perform a selection between a plurality of short range wireless networks based distinct determinations of a “first required signal format” and a “second required signal format”.
Instead, the applicant’s specification essentially discloses short range 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 a specific and distinct “required signal format” of Bluetooth networks or a specific and distinct “required signal format” of WiFi networks to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to understand what types of signals, e.g. multimedia signals, have required formats such that should be transmitted by one short range wireless network versus that of another short range wireless network. Additionally, the applicant never discloses differently configuring signals in response to determining that a signal has a required signal format that is 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 “required signal formats” with differing networks, is that of determining whether a signal is to be transmitted by a wired network versus that of a short range 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 distinct recitations of “… a first required signal format … compatible with at least one of the plurality of short range wireless communication networks …” and “… a second required signal format … compatible with at least one of the plurality of short range wireless communication networks … ” render the scope of the claims indefinite.
Specifically, it is not clear as to what constitute “first” and “second” “required signal formats” which are to be determined to be compatible with either one of a short range wireless network comprising a Bluetooth network or a WiFi network.
For example, the applicant exemplifies the claimed “signal” to be transmitted over a short range wireless network to be a multimedia signal (e.g. Specification, par. 252 – “…a type of signal payload (such as whether the signal contains multimedia)…”). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not readily apprehend what distinctions, if any, exist between signal format requirements for multimedia signals that are supposedly compatible with Bluetooth versus signal format requirements compatible with WiFi. There is no standard in the art for determining whether a multimedia signal has format requirements compatible with Bluetooth or whether the multimedia signal has format requirements compatible with WiFi.
Furthermore, as was shown within the Specification objection and 112 first paragraph rejections above, the applicant essentially disclosed each of Bluetooth and WiFi networks are equally suitable for wirelessly transmitting the same multimedia signal.
Thus, it is not clear as to the scope of claim recitations directed towards determining signal format requirements compatible with a short range wireless network comprising either a WiFi or Bluetooth network, and configuring a signal in response to such determination.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner presumes that the “required signal formats” of the received signals is to be interpreted as a determined general preference for sending a particular signal (e.g. multimedia) over one short range wireless network versus that of another.
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, as best understood in view of the above noted deficiencies of clarity:
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 plurality of user’s mobile phones and personal devices 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 plurality of short range wireless networks, such as Bluetooth communication protocol or WiFi, so as to deliver the signals to a plurality of connected mobile phones and personal devices 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 of “required signal formats” of the signal and network.
However, Balog similarly discloses a system for transmitting signals to a plurality of mobile phones and personal devices (e.g. Balog, Abstract), and furthermore teaches that the specific transmission protocol (e.g. Bluetooth or WiFi) to each one of the plurality of mobile phones and personal devices is chosen in response to determining an optimal protocol most suitable for delivering the signals to the particular mobile phone or device, i.e. compatibility of “required signal format” 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 or optimal 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 any one of a plurality of mobile phones or personal devices 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:
…the received first signal having a first required signal format … wherein the configuring of the received first signal occurs in response to determining that the first required signal format is compatible with at least one of the plurality of short range wireless communication networks supported by the wireless interface, and that the Bluetooth communication protocol is appropriate for the configuring of the received first signal (e.g. Campbell, par. 64, 69; e.g. Balog, par. 23, 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, the received second signal having a second required signal format (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; Balog, par. 23, 28);
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 second required signal format is compatible with at least one of the plurality of short range wireless communication networks supported by the wireless interface, and that the WiFi communication protocol is appropriate for the configuring of the received second signal (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 4/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues or alleges essentially that:
…
… It follows that Campbell fails to teach or suggest a network controller configured to ... configure the received first signal in accordance with a Bluetooth communication protocol to be used for wireless transmissions over the Bluetooth communication network, wherein the configuring of the received first signal occurs in response to determining that the first required signal format is compatible with at least one of the plurality of short range wireless communication networks supported by the wireless- 13 -
interface, and that the Bluetooth communication protocol is appropriate for the configuring of the received first signal, ... and to ... configure the received second signal in accordance with a WiFi communication protocol to be used for wireless transmissions over the WiFi communication network, wherein the configuring of the received second signal occurs in response to determining that the second required signal format is compatible with at least one of the plurality of short range wireless communication networks supported by the wireless interface, and that the WiFi communication protocol is appropriate for the configuring of the received second signal, all as set forth in claim 23.
…
(e.g. see Remarks, pg. 13, 14).
Examiner respectfully responds:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues or alleges essentially that:
…
Balog fails to teach or suggest a network controller implemented onboard a vehicle. To the extent that Balog's protocol selector (26) determines an optimal communication protocol for any communications to, from, or among any of the target devices (16), such determinations occur at Balog's service provider (12), as opposed to occurring onboard a vehicle.
…
(e.g. see Remarks, pg. 14).
Examiner respectfully responds:
The examiner respectfully notes that Balog was relied up to teach the need for protocol selection and how protocols may be selected – not that a network controller resides on a vehicle.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues or alleges essentially that:
…
… Furthermore, protocol determinations performed by Balog's protocol selector (26) are not based on a required signal format of a signal received from an input/output system of a vehicle (as required by claim 23), but are instead based on a predetermined global profile of the user: …
…
(e.g. see Remarks, pg. 14, 15).
Examiner respectfully responds:
The examiner respectfully disagrees, at least, for the reason that Balog clearly teaches that different signals may have different optimal transmission protocols, i.e. “required signal format” and also teaches the determination of a compatible network or protocol based upon such (e.g. Balog, par. 1, 21, 28).
Applicant argues or alleges essentially that:
…
Balog merely describes that the protocol selector (26) causes the service provider (12) to adopt a protocol that is best suited for the delivery of content from the content server (22) to one or more of the target devices (16). (Id., at [0028]). This is not the same as protocol determinations performed by a network controller onboard a vehicle, wherein the protocol determinations are based on first and second required signal formats of corresponding first and second signals received from an input/output system of the vehicle. …
…
(e.g. see Remarks, pg. 15).
Examiner respectfully responds:
The examiner respectfully notes that Balog was relied up to teach the need for protocol selection and how protocols may be selected – not that a network controller resides on a vehicle.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues or alleges essentially that:
…
… It follows that Balog fails to teach or suggest a network controller configured to ... configure the received first signal in accordance with a Bluetooth communication protocol to be used for wireless transmissions over the Bluetooth communication network, wherein the configuring of the received first signal occurs in response to determining that the first required signal format is compatible with at least one of the plurality of short range wireless communication networks supported by the wireless interface, and that the Bluetooth communication protocol is appropriate for the configuring of the received first signal, ... and to ... configure the received second signal in accordance with a WiFi communication protocol to be used for wireless
transmissions over the WiFi communication network, wherein the configuring of the received second signal occurs in response to determining that the second required signal format is compatible with at least one of the plurality of short range wireless communication networks supported by the wireless interface, and that the WiFi communication protocol is appropriate for the configuring of the received second signal, all as set forth in claim 23.
…
(e.g. see Remarks, pg. 15, 16).
Examiner respectfully responds:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues or alleges essentially that:
…
… the Office Action also fails to sufficiently demonstrate the existence of a motivation to combine the identified references. The proposed combination of Campbell and Balog set forth in the Office Action is not supported by any coherent technical rationale and instead reflects hindsight- driven assembly of disparate features drawn from fundamentally different systems. Campbell and Balog are directed to distinct problems and operate within different architectural contexts, and a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine them in the manner proposed.
…
… Because the problems being solved by these references differ, a POSITA would lack a reason to combine the references in the manner suggested in the Office Action. For example, a POSITA would not find any motivation to incorporate a wide-scale content delivery methodology of the type described in Balog into the environment of a more specialized local vehicle control system.
(e.g. see Remarks, pg. 16).
Examiner respectfully responds:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Each of Campbell and Balog are systems directed to the selection of a transmission protocol and the delivery of different types of content and data to a diverse plurality of mobile phones and personal devices of a user. Thus, the examiner notes that each of Campbell and Balog are analogous to the claimed invention and to each other.
Furthermore, the examiner respectfully notes that the office action clearly and explicitly discusses the motivation of a POSITA to combine the prior art teachings. However, the applicant’s argument amounts only to an allegation that the motivation is insufficient without any evidence or addressing any supposed error within the examiner’s factual findings.
Applicant argues or alleges essentially that:
…
The references also demonstrate architectural incompatibility. Balog's method relies on a complex infrastructure involving a stored "global profile" to make routing and protocol decisions. By contrast, Campbell's vehicle control system is designed as a localized controller for vehicle-specific tasks. Integrating Balog's server-dependent, profile-based logic into Campbell's vehicle-local architecture to handle signals received via an input/output system of the vehicle would introduce significant unnecessary complexity and technical overhead, thereby discouraging the proposed combination of references.
…
(e.g. see Remarks, pg. 17).
Examiner respectfully responds:
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the examiner notes that the office action does not rely upon any form of “…Integrating Balog's server-dependent, profile-based logic into Campbell's vehicle-local architecture to handle signals received via an input/output system of the vehicle …”. Rather, the office action clearly points to Balog’s teachings that different types of signals may have different transmission networks or protocols that are optimally selected for the transmission of the signals to different devices.
Second, the examiner notes, that Campbell clearly teaches an vehicle architecture comprising a network controller capable of transmitting/receiving data to/from remote servers and databases so as to enable the performance of localized functions (e.g. Campbell, fig. 4; par. 59, 67, 68, 115, 121). Thus, assuming arguendo, even if applicant were to insist that Balog’s “global profile” were to be required for the network controller of Campbell to select an appropriate transmission protocol for each of the user’s different devices, the examiner points out that there appears to be no architectural incompatibility between Balog’s usage of remotely stored data and Campbell’s local selection of an appropriate protocol as is alleged by the applicant.
Applicant argues or alleges essentially that:
…
Furthermore, neither reference is concerned with the core objective of claim 23, which includes dynamically configuring individual signals received from an input/output system of a vehicle, wherein the dynamic configuring includes protocol selection based on a signal format requirement of each received signal. At most, Campbell and Balog disclose general wireless communication utilizing either Bluetooth or WiFi. Merely disclosing both of these wireless communication technologies in isolation, however, does not provide motivation to combine them in the specific decision-making architecture set forth in claim 23.
…
(e.g. see Remarks, pg. 17).
Examiner respectfully responds:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Each of Campbell and Balog are systems directed to the selection of a transmission protocol and the delivery of different types of content and data to a diverse plurality of mobile phones and personal devices of a user.
Specifically, Campbell clearly teaches the transmission of content to different user devices using a plurality of transmission protocols (i.e. a protocol selection is required if the network controller is enabled to perform data transmissions according to multiple protocols). Furthermore, Balog teaches why and how to select an appropriate protocol to transmit content to a plurality of different user devices.
Each of Campbell and Balog are clearly analogous to the presently claimed invention, and the motivation to combine as stated within the office actions of record has never been specifically addressed or countered by the applicant.
Applicant argues or alleges essentially that:
…
Finally, combining Campbell and Balog in the proposed manner set forth in the Office Action would require substantial, non-trivial redesign. For example, to arrive at the invention of claim 23, a POSITA would need to modify Campbell to analyze signal format requirements of signals received from an input/output system of a vehicle, maintain knowledge of multiple wireless communication network compatibilities, and dynamically configure each received signal based on compatibility of the analyzed signal format requirements relative to the multiple wireless communication networks. Such modifications which are neither simple nor predictable require the implementation of a decision engine that is not contemplated in either reference. The Office Action's failure to establish a motivation to combine Campbell and Balog is fatal to the obviousness analysis as a whole and provides another, independent reason for withdrawing the § 103 rejection of independent claim 23.
…
(e.g. see Remarks, pg. 17, 18).
Examiner respectfully responds:
The examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that there appears to be nothing “non-trivial” or “unexpected” about selecting an appropriate transmission protocol to deliver content to a user device. As noted above, Campbell clearly teaches transmitting content to users devices using an appropriate one of a plurality of available protocols. Balog further teaches why and how (i.e. selecting based upon a “required signal format”) to select a protocol to transmit content to multiple user devices.
Analysis of a signal, knowledge of the available networks/protocols, and the selection of an appropriate available network/protocol based upon the signal to be transmitted are all simple and predictable expectations to those of ordinary skill in the art who would have been tasked with implementing a system which can transmit data to multiple user devices using multiple, different protocols.
Applicant argues or alleges essentially that:
…
All that remains is a hindsight-fueled reconstruction of the prior art references that is fostered using claim 23 as a roadmap. Obviousness cannot be demonstrated by stitching together selectively identified bits and pieces of text from Campbell and Balog that allegedly match the elements of claim 23, and then subsequently attempting to justify the proposed combination by manufacturing a reason to combine that is not suggested by the references themselves. That approach constitutes quintessential hindsight, and it has routinely been rejected as legally improper. … The Office Action's impermissible application of hindsight provides another, independent reason for withdrawing the § 103 rejection of independent claim 23.
…
(e.g. see Remarks, pg. 18, 19).
Examiner respectfully responds:
The examiner respectfully finds the applicant’s argument unpersuasive, at least, for the reason that the applicant fails to ever specifically address and counter the examiner’s stated motivation to combine.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues or alleges essentially that:
…
Finally, the Office Action fails to demonstrate with particularity that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making any of the unidentified and unsupported modifications to Campbell based on Balog to arrive at the invention of independent claim 23. The Office Action is, in effect, silent on this point. A conclusory assertion with no explanation is inadequate to support a finding of obviousness.
…
(e.g. see Remarks, pg. 19).
Examiner respectfully responds:
The examiner respectfully maintains that there appears to be nothing unpredictable or non-trivial about the subject matter of transmitting data to different devices according to different protocols or the selection of an appropriate transmission protocol based upon the transmitted signal. The expectation of success is clearly implied by the prior art teachings themselves.
The balance of Applicant’s arguments are essentially the same and/or based upon the above arguments, and they are noted to be unpersuasive for the reasons already noted of record.
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 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
Prosecution Insights