Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 the Claims
Claims 1, 14, 19, and 25 are amended. Claims 1-25 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended limitation, “…the predicting the one or more toll transactions includes algorithmically inferring that a toll transaction corresponding to a particular toll location has occurred based on correlating consecutive telematic data points of the plurality of telematic data points, determining that the rental vehicle travelled along a route including the particular toll location, and identifying the particular toll location from the toll locations included in the toll information database,” integrates the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two. Examiner disagrees. The amended limitation further correspond to the judicial exception of certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, interactions; commercial interactions; business relations) and mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). At best, the alleged improvement is an improvement in the judicial exception itself, not an improvement in computers or technology. The alleged improvement is an improvement in the business process or steps to conduct the business of automated tolling, not an improvement in computers or technology. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05(a). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claim recites the additional elements of: a first computing server, a telematic tracker, toll information database, and a second computing server. The combination of the additional elements of a first computing server, toll information database, and a second computing server are computer components recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the telematic tracker amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (tracking a rental vehicle and generating telematic data). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. It is also important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology (emphasis added). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology. Technical improvement focuses on enhancing the tools, software, or machinery, while business process improvement focuses on streamlining the steps, workflows, and methodologies people use to do their work. Applicant’s claims fall in the latter. Applicant’s argument that the steps cannot be performed din the human mind is unpersuasive. The mental steps or processes inquiry under is not “could a human do this at the same speed/precision.” It’s whether the claim limitation, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) is explicit that a claim can recite a mental process even though it is performed with the assistance of a computer. The question is the underlying nature of the step, not whether a human could literally replicate the computer’s exact arithmetic, operations, of functionality. The claims detail steps such as accessing toll fee schedules and locations for toll agencies, based on telematic data points identifying one or more toll-triggering data points during the rental time period that correspond to toll fee schedules and locations, predicting toll transactions applied to the rental vehicle, correlating consecutive telematic data points of the plurality of telematic data points, determining that the [rental vehicle] travelled along a route including the particular toll location, and identifying the particular toll location from the toll locations included in the [toll information database], generating the estimated toll fee by identifying and aggregating one or more toll transactions. These limitations or features directly correspond to the observation and evaluation of data, and making a decision (judgment/opinion) based on the observed and evaluated data, and these steps may be performed in the human mind as well. For the reasons set forth above, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 16, filed 07/13/2026, with respect to 35U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-25 recite a method (i.e. process). Therefore claims 1-25 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations: generating a rental invoice including estimated toll fees at point of return, the method comprising: receiving a plurality of telematic data points from [a telematic tracker] associated with a rental vehicle during a rental time period; accessing [a toll information database] comprising toll fee schedules and toll locations for different toll agencies; based on the plurality of telematic data points, identifying one or more toll-triggering telematic data points of the plurality of telematic data points during the rental time period that correspond to one or more toll fee schedules and toll locations included in [the toll information database]; based on identifying the one or more toll-triggering telematic data points, predicting one or more toll transactions applied to the rental vehicle during the rental time period that are associated with the one or more toll-triggering telematic data points, wherein the predicting the one or more toll transactions includes algorithmically inferring that a toll transaction corresponding to a particular toll location has occurred based on correlating consecutive telematic data points of the plurality of telematic data points, determining that the [rental vehicle] travelled along a route including the particular toll location, and identifying the particular toll location from the toll locations included in the [toll information database]; receiving a request for generating an estimated total toll fee associated with the rental vehicle during the rental time period; in response to receiving the request, generating the estimated total toll fee by identifying and aggregating the one or more predicted toll transactions for the rental vehicle during the rental time period; and transmitting the estimated total toll fee to be presented within a rental invoice. The invention and claims are drawn towards facilitating fleet management and near real-time toll fee transactions incurred during a rental period of a rental vehicle, and the claim recites limitations that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, interactions; commercial interactions; business relations) as evidenced by limitations detailing generating a rental invoice for estimated toll fees including predicting toll transactions based on toll-triggering telematic data points, generating the estimated toll fee during the rental time period, and transmitting the estimated toll fee to be presented with a rental invoice. The claim also receives limitations the directly correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by limitations detailing accessing toll fee schedules and locations for toll agencies, based on telematic data points identifying one or more toll-triggering data points during the rental time period that correspond to toll fee schedules and locations, predicting toll transactions applied to the rental vehicle, correlating consecutive telematic data points of the plurality of telematic data points, determining that the [rental vehicle] travelled along a route including the particular toll location, and identifying the particular toll location from the toll locations included in the [toll information database], generating the estimated toll fee by identifying and aggregating one or more toll transactions. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: The features or elements in brackets in the above Step 2A Prong One section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claim recites the additional elements of: a first computing server, a telematic tracker, toll information database, and a second computing server. The combination of the additional elements of a first computing server, toll information database, and a second computing server are computer components recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the telematic tracker amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (tracking a rental vehicle and generating telematic data). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 5 recites the limitation that the request is automatically generated in response to detecting [the telematic tracker] passing through a vehicle return checkpoint comprising [a sensor] configured to detect the telematic tracker. The claim limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of the telematic tracker and a sensor. The additional elements amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (tracking a rental vehicle and generating telematic data). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites the limitation that the request is automatically generated in response to detecting [the telematic tracker] passing through a vehicle return checkpoint comprising [a vehicle license imaging device] configured to automatically capture an image of a license plate on the rental vehicle. The claim limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of the telematic tracker and a vehicle license imaging device. The additional elements amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (capturing an image of a license plate for a rental vehicle for rental vehicle detection). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 7 recites the limitation that the request is automatically generated in response to receiving user input via [a user interface] comprising at least a selectable icon that when selected triggers the request being generated. The claim is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of a user interface which is a computer component recited at a high level of generality. The additional element amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 10 recites the limitation of transmitting the estimated running toll fee to [a user interface] configured to display the estimated running toll fee. The claim is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of a user interface which is a computer component recited at a high level of generality. The additional element amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 14 recites the limitations: generating a rental invoice including estimated toll fees at point of return, the method comprising: detecting [a telematic tracker] corresponding to a rental vehicle entering a predetermined geographic zone associated with a rental vehicle company within a predetermined return time window; in response to detecting [the telematic tracker] entering the predetermined geographic zone within the predetermined return time window, automatically generating a request to generate an estimated total toll fee based on a correlated trip dataset corresponding to a rental time period associated with the rental vehicle; in response to generating the request, automatically transmitting the request from [the rental car server] to [a remote toll-telematics server]; receiving the estimated total toll fee that is generated by identifying and aggregating one or more predicted toll transactions for the rental vehicle during the rental time period, wherein the one or more predicted toll transactions are predicted by algorithmically inferring that a toll transaction corresponding to a particular toll location has occurred based on correlating consecutive telematic data points associated with [the rental vehicle], determining that [the rental vehicle] traveled along a route including the particular toll location, and identifying the particular toll location from toll locations included in [a toll information database]; and generating a rental invoice that presents rental fees and the estimated toll fees within the rental invoice. The invention and claims are drawn towards facilitating fleet management and near real-time toll fee transactions incurred during a rental period of a rental vehicle, and the claim recites limitations that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, interactions; commercial interactions; business relations) as evidenced by limitations detailing detecting a rental vehicle entering a predetermined geographic zone associated with a rental vehicle company, generating an estimated toll fee based on a correlated trip dataset, and generating a rental invoice that presents rental fees and the estimated toll fees. The claim also receives limitations the directly correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by limitations detailing detecting a tracker corresponding to a rental vehicle, and generating an estimated total toll fee based on a correlated trip dataset corresponding to rental time period, correlating consecutive telematic data points associated with [the rental vehicle], determining that [the rental vehicle] traveled along a route including the particular toll location, and identifying the particular toll location from toll locations included in [a toll information database]. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: The features or elements in brackets in the above Step 2A Prong One section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claim recites the additional elements of: a telematic tracker, a rental car server, a toll information database, and remote toll-telematics server. The combination of the additional elements of a rental car server, toll information database, and remote toll-telematics server are computer components recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the telematic tracker amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (tracking a rental vehicle and generating telematic data). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 15 recites the limitation that the [rental car server] comprises [a sensor] for detecting a proximity of the rental car within the predetermined geographic zone. The limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional elements of the rental car server and a sensor. The additional element of the rental server amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception The additional element of the sensor amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (detecting a proximity of a rental car). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 17 recites the limitation that the [rental car server] comprises [a sensor] for detecting a proximity of the rental car within the predetermined geographic zone. The limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional elements of the rental car server and a sensor. The additional element of the rental server amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception The additional element of the sensor amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (detecting a proximity of a rental car). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 19 recites the limitations of: generating and displaying estimated toll fees associated with tolls incurred by a vehicle during a service rental period associated with the vehicle, the method comprising: tracking telematics data associated with the vehicle during the service rental period; transmitting the tracked telematics data to [a telematics server]; receiving toll transaction data during the service rental period based at least in part on the transmitted telematics data, wherein the toll transaction data comprises one or more toll transactions predicted by algorithmically inferring that a toll transaction corresponding to a particular toll location has occurred based on correlating consecutive telematic data points of the transmitted telematics data, determining that the vehicle traveled along a route including the particular toll location, and identifying the particular toll location from toll locations included in [a toll information database]; and displaying the received toll transaction data at [a display] contained within the vehicle during the service rental period. The invention and claims are drawn towards facilitating fleet management and near real-time toll fee transactions incurred during a rental period of a rental vehicle, and the claim recites limitations that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, interactions; commercial interactions; business relations) as evidenced by limitations detailing tracking telematics data associated with the vehicle during the service rental period, and receiving toll transaction data during the service rental period based at least in part on the transmitted telematics data. The claim also receives limitations the directly correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by limitations detailing tracking telematics data associated with the vehicle during the service rental period, transmitting the tracked telematics data, correlating consecutive telematic data points of the transmitted telematics data, determining that the vehicle traveled along a route including the particular toll location, and identifying the particular toll location from toll locations, and receiving toll transaction data based on transmitted telematics data. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: The features or elements in brackets in the above Step 2A Prong One section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claim recites the additional elements of: telematics server, a toll information database, and a display. The telematics server, toll information database, and display are computer components recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the display within the vehicle amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (displaying toll transaction data for a rental vehicle). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 22 recites [the display] comprises [a hardware display mounted to an interior portion of the vehicle]. The additional element of the display amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 23 recites the display comprises a mobile device that is detached from the vehicle. The additional element of the display amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Accordingly, in combination, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 24 recites the display comprises a user mobile phone. The additional element of the display amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Accordingly, in combination, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 25 recites the limitations: generating a service invoice including estimated toll fees at point of service completion including: receiving a plurality of telematic data points from telematic tracker associated with a service vehicle during a service time period; accessing [a toll information database] comprising toll fee schedules and toll locations for different toll agencies; based on the plurality of telematic data points, identifying one or more toll-triggering telematic data points of the plurality of telematic data points during the service time period that correspond to one or more toll fee schedules and toll locations included in [the toll information database]; based on identifying the one or more toll-triggering telematic data points, predicting one or more toll transactions applied to the service vehicle during the service time period that are associated with the one or more toll-triggering telematic data points, wherein the predicting the one or more toll transactions includes algorithmically inferring that a toll transaction corresponding to a particular toll location has occurred based on correlating consecutive telematic data points of the plurality of telematic data points, determining that the service vehicle traveled along a route including the particular toll location, and identifying the particular toll location from the toll locations included in the [toll information database]; receiving a request for generating an estimated total toll fee associated with the service vehicle during the service time period; in response to receiving the request, generating the estimated total toll fee by identifying and aggregating the one or more predicted toll transactions for the service vehicle during the service time period; and transmitting the estimated total toll fee to be presented within a service invoice. The invention and claims are drawn towards facilitating fleet management and near real-time toll fee transactions incurred during a rental period of a rental vehicle, and the claim recites limitations that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, interactions; commercial interactions; business relations) as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving telematic data points associated with a service vehicle during a service time period, identifying one or more toll-triggering telematic data points of the plurality of telematic data points during the service time period that correspond to one or more toll fee schedules and toll locations, predicting one or more toll transactions applied to the service vehicle during the service time period, generating an estimated total toll fee associated with the service vehicle during the service time period, and transmitting the estimated total toll fee to be presented within a service invoice. The claim also receives limitations the directly correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving a plurality of telematic data points, based on the plurality of telematic data points, identifying one or more toll- triggering telematic data points of the plurality of telematic data points during the service time period that correspond to one or more toll fee schedules and toll locations, identifying the one or more toll-triggering telematic data points, predicting one or more toll transactions applied to the service vehicle during the service time period that are associated with the one or more toll-triggering telematic data points, correlating consecutive telematic data points of the plurality of telematic data points, determining that the service vehicle traveled along a route including the particular toll location, and identifying the particular toll location from the toll locations. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: The features or elements in brackets in the above Step 2A Prong One section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claim recites the additional elements of: a first computing server, a telematic tracker, a toll information database, and a second computing server. The additional elements of the first computing server, the toll information database, and the second computing server are computer components recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the telematics tracker amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (displaying toll transaction data for a rental vehicle). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, 8, 9, 11-13, 16, 18, 20, and 21 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 2-4, 8, 9, 11-13, 16, 18, 20, and 21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes Centner (2020/0302424), Archibald (2008/0270226), and Silva (2022/0084086 ). Centner discloses a system that utilizes a sensor and system for sensing a signal and communicating information over a mobile communication device to complete a transaction from a vehicle, specifically an electronic toll collection system. The system tracking vehicles through a toll station or other vendor locations and gathering and organizing transaction information incurred and communicating information to the customer. Archibald discloses a method of calculating a usage fee for the use of electronic toll collection in a rental vehicle includes collecting customer information concerning customer's renting of one or more rental vehicles, collecting toll use information concerning the use of electronic toll collection at a tollgate, calculating a usage fee based upon the customer information and the toll use information, and displaying the usage fee. Silva discloses a method and system for facilitating auditing tolling associated with routes. The method includes receiving vehicle data from a vehicle device associated with a vehicle used by a user for making a trip using a route, analyzing the vehicle data, verifying the vehicle for the trip based on the analyzing, identifying the route based on the verifying and the request, retrieving toll pricing sign information of a toll pricing sign displayed on the route based on the identifying, transmitting the toll pricing sign information to the user device,, generating an audit data of the route based on a user identifier, the vehicle data, the route, the response, and the toll pricing information, and storing the audit data. Neither reference, individually nor in combination, appears to disclose the detailed limitations of claims amended claims. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes the publication “Formally Validated of Novel Tolling Service With the ITS-G5” (Randriamasy, et al,; 2019) which discloses a solution for tolling transaction using ITS-G5 technology for connected or autonomous vehicles. The technology provides an efficient architecture that ensures the security of exchanges is guaranteed by the security back office of the tolling server as a trusted party. The reference does not appear to disclose the detailed limitations of the amended claims. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights