DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 dated 07/31/2026 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-20 in view of 103 rejections 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.11922734. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the same inventive concept and differ only obvious variations and additional details that would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art.
Instant Application
Patent US 11922734
1. A computer system comprising at least one computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory device, the at least one computing device in communication with at least one vehicle control system of a vehicle, and at least one responding party computing device associated with one or more responding parties, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive, from the at least one vehicle control system, a notification of an incident including (i) sensor data from one or more sensors included within or in communication with the vehicle and (ii) sub-systems data from one or more sub-systems of the vehicle;
determine one or more damages to the vehicle and one or more objects involved in the incident by analyzing the sensor data and the sub-systems data, the one or more damages including one or more evolving hazards associated with the incident corresponding to at least one of fire or potential fire;
determine an incident response including categorizing the incident based upon a damage level of the one or more damages; identify at least one of the one or more responding parties based on the determined incident response;
generate, by parsing the sensor data and the sub-systems data, a set of critical data to transmit to the at least one responding party, the set of critical data including data identifying the one or more evolving hazards;
and transmit a message to the at least one responding party including the set of critical data and a location of the vehicle.
1. An incident management system for managing an incident response, the incident management system comprising at least one incident management (IM) computing device and a vehicle, the at least one IM computing device in communication with the vehicle, the at least one IM computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory device, wherein the at least one processor is programmed to:
in response to the vehicle determining that an incident has occurred, receive, from the vehicle, a notification of the incident, the notification including (i) sensor data from one or more sensors included within or in communication with the vehicle and (ii) sub-systems data from one or more sub-systems of the vehicle;
determine (i) one or more injuries to at least one of one or more occupants of the vehicle or one or more pedestrians and (ii) one or more damages to the vehicle and one or more objects involved in the incident by analyzing the sensor data and the sub-systems data, the one or more damages including evolving hazards corresponding to at least one of fire or potential fire;
determine the incident response, the determination of the incident response including categorizing the incident based upon a first level of the one or more injuries and a second level of the one or more damages;
identify at least one responding party based on the determined incident response, wherein the at least one responding party includes paramedic services when the first level requires assistance from the paramedic services, and wherein the at least one responding party includes fire department services when the second level requires assistance from the fire department services;
generate, by parsing the sensor data and the sub-systems data, a set of critical data to transmit to the at least one responding party, the set of critical data specific to the at least one responding party, wherein the set of critical data for paramedic services includes an injury assessment, and wherein the set of critical data for the fire department services includes a list of the evolving hazards; and
transmit a message to the at least one responding party including the set of critical data for the at least one responding party and a location of the vehicle.
9. A computer-implemented method implemented using a computer system including at least one computing device that includes at least one processor and at least one memory device, the at least one computing device in communication with at leastone vehicle control system of a vehicle, and at least one responding party computing device associated with one or more responding parties, the method comprising: receiving, from the at least one vehicle control system, a notification of an incident including (i) sensor data from one or more sensors included within or in communication with the vehicle and (ii) sub-systems data from one or more sub-systems of the vehicle;determining one or more damages to the vehicle and one or more objects involved in the incident by analyzing the sensor data and the sub-systems data, the one or more damages including one or more evolving hazards associated with the incident corresponding to at least one of fire or potential fire; determining an incident response including categorizing the incident based upon a damage level of the one or more damages; identifying at least one of the one or more responding parties based on the determined incident response; generating, by parsing the sensor data and the sub-systems data, a set of critical data to transmit to the at least one responding party, the set of critical data including data identifying the one or more evolving hazards; and transmitting a message to the at least one responding party including the set of critical data and a location of the vehicle.
8. A method for managing an incident response, the method implemented using an incident management system comprising at least one incident management (IM) computing device and a vehicle, the at least one IM computing device in communication with the vehicle, the at least one IM computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory device, the method comprising:
in response to the vehicle determining that an incident has occurred, receiving, from the vehicle, a notification of the incident, the notification including (i) sensor data from one or more sensors included within or in communication with the vehicle and (ii) sub-systems data from one or more sub-systems of the vehicle;
determine (i) one or more injuries to at least one of one or more occupants of the vehicle or one or more pedestrians and (ii) one or more damages to the vehicle and one or more objects involved in the incident by analyzing the sensor data and the sub-systems data, the one or more damages including evolving hazards corresponding to at least one of fire or potential fire;
determining the incident response, the determination of the incident response comprising categorizing the incident based upon a first level of the one or more injuries and a second level of the one or more damages;
identifying at least one responding party based on the determined incident response, wherein the at least one responding party includes paramedic services when the first level requires assistance from the paramedic services, and wherein the at least one responding party includes fire department services when the second level requires assistance from the fire department services;
generating, by parsing the sensor data and the sub-systems data, a set of critical data to transmit to the at least one responding party, the set of critical data specific to the at least one responding party, wherein the set of critical data for the paramedic services includes an injury assessment, and wherein the set of critical data for the fire department services includes a list of the evolving hazards; and
transmitting a message to the at least one responding party including the set of critical data for the at least one responding party and a location of the vehicle.
16. At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by at least one processor of at least one computing device in communication with at least one vehicle control system of a vehicle, and at least one responding party computing device associated with one or more responding parties, the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor to: receive, from the at least one vehicle control system, a notification of an incident including (i) sensor data from one or more sensors included within or in communication with the vehicle and (ii) sub-systems data from one or more sub-systems of the vehicle; determine one or more damages to the vehicle and one or more objects involved in the incident by analyzing the sensor data and the sub-systems data, the one or more damages including one or more evolving hazards associated with the incident corresponding to at least one of fire or potential fire; determine an incident response including categorizing the incident based upon a damage level of the one or more damages; identify at least one of the one or more responding parties based on the determined incident response; generate, by parsing the sensor data and the sub-systems data, a set of critical data to transmit to the at least one responding party, the set of critical data including data identifying the one or more evolving hazards; and transmit a message to the at least one responding party including the set of critical data and a location of the vehicle.
15. At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by at least one processor of an IM computing device in communication with at least one memory device, the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor to:
in response to a vehicle determining that an incident has occurred, receive, from the vehicle, a notification of the incident, the notification including (i) sensor data from one or more sensors included within or in communication with the vehicle and (ii) sub-systems data from one or more sub-systems of the vehicle;
determine (i) one or more injuries to at least one of one or more occupants of the vehicle or one or more pedestrians and (ii) one or more damages to the vehicle and one or more objects involved in the incident by analyzing the sensor data and the sub-systems data, the one or more damages including evolving hazards corresponding to at least one of fire or potential fire;
determine an incident response, the determination of the incident response including categorizing the incident based upon a first level of the one or more injuries and a second level of the one or more damages;
identify at least one responding party based on the determined incident response, wherein the at least one responding party includes paramedic services when the first level requires assistance from the paramedic services, and wherein the at least one responding party includes fire department services when the second level requires assistance from the fire department services;
generate, by parsing the sensor data and the sub-systems data, a set of critical data to transmit to the at least one responding party, the set of critical data specific to the at least one responding party, wherein the set of critical data for the paramedic services includes an injury assessment, and wherein the set of critical data for the fire department services includes a list of the evolving hazards; and
transmit a message to the at least one responding party including the set of critical data for the at least one responding party and a location of the vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 9-12, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qawami et al. (US20190049969A1) in view of Feit et al. (US20170270252A1) and in further view of Newman et al. (US9701307B1) and here in after will be referred as Qawami , Feit and Newman respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Qawami teaches a computer system comprising at least one computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory device, the at least one computing device in communication with at least one vehicle control system of a vehicle (Fig.2),
Qawami also teaches receive, from the at least one vehicle control system, a notification of an incident including (i) sensor data from one or more sensors included within or in communication with the vehicle and (ii) sub-systems data from one or more sub-systems of the vehicle (Para [0035-0036] : “In some embodiments, main system controller 202 is configured to receive sensor data, via intra-vehicle communication subsystem 210, from sensors 110 of the vehicle, and determine whether the host vehicle (on which VIM system 200 is disposed) is involved in a vehicle incident, and if the host vehicle is determined to be involved in an incident, determine whether another vehicle is involved. The sensor data may include, but are not limited to, sensor data (images) from one or more cameras of the vehicle providing frontal, rearward and/or side world views looking out the vehicle; sensor data from accelerometer, inertia measurement units (IMU), and/or gyroscopes of the vehicle, providing speed and/or deceleration data prior to occurrence of the incident, and tilt of the vehicle after occurrence of the incident; and/or sensor data from the microphones providing audio data during occurrence of the incident. Sensor data (images) from the one or more cameras and/or from the microphones may be processed and analyzed for object and/or sound recognitions, comparing to training set data, to determine or contribute to determining whether the host vehicle is in a vehicle incident. Sensor data from the accelerometer and/or gyroscopes of the vehicle, sensor data from inertia measurement units (IMU), and so forth, may be analyzed and compared to training set data to determine whether the host vehicle has experienced frontal, rearward or side impacts, as well as roll overs, and so forth.”);
Qawami does not expressly teaches at least one responding party computing device associated with one or more responding parties, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine one or more damages to the vehicle and to one or more external objects involved in the incident by analyzing the sensor data and the sub-systems data, the one or more damages including one or more evolving current hazards associated with the incident corresponding to at least one of fire or potential fire, the one or more current hazards evolving in real-time and detected by the one or more sensors; determine an incident response including categorizing the incident based upon a damage level of the one or more damages; identify at least one of the one or more responding parties based on the determined incident response; generate, by parsing the sensor data and the sub-systems data, a set of critical data to transmit to the at least one responding party, the set of critical data including data identifying the one or more evolving current hazards; and transmit a message to the at least one responding party including the set of critical data and a location of the vehicle.
Feit teaches at least one responding party computing device associated with one or more responding parties (Fig.1).
Feit also teaches determine an incident response including categorizing the incident based upon a damage level of the one or more damages; identify at least one of the one or more responding parties based on the determined incident response (Para [0030] : “At step 530, once the vehicle onboard computer detects a collision of sufficient force that an emergency medical response may be needed, it may initiate a communication (e.g., phone call, text message, multi-media message, email, etc.) to 9-1-1 (or the appropriate emergency medical response phone number) using a modem, cellular hotspot, or similar telecommunications device contained within, or physically or virtually linked to the vehicle. In some embodiments, the vehicle onboard computer may coordinate with other devices such as one or more mobile devices present in the vehicle to initiate a communication to 9-1-1. For example, the vehicle onboard computer may send a notification or request to the one or more mobile devices which instructs the one or more mobile devices to initial a communication to 9-1-1.”).
Newman teaches determine one or more damages to the vehicle and to one or more external objects involved in the incident by analyzing the sensor data and the sub-systems data, the one or more damages including one or more evolving current hazards associated with the incident corresponding to at least one of fire or potential fire, the one or more current hazards evolving in real-time and detected by the one or more sensors (Col.46-Line 65-Col.47 Line 16: “When the collision is over (1405), the computing means first does a self-check (1406) if it is able. In the version shown, the computing means terminates its activity (1412) if it fails the self-check. In other versions, the processor may attempt to secure the vehicle by turning off the fuel pump and unlocking the doors. If the computing means is still operational, and assuming the sensors are also still operational, the system checks the recent sensor data to see if there is oncoming traffic and if a second collision is imminent (1407). If the sensors are not operational, the processor may use pre-collision traffic data to predict if a secondary collision is likely. If so, it initiates the planned evasive action (1408) such as proceeding to the side of the road. If a secondary collision is not imminent, the flow proceeds to box 1409, warning other vehicles of the danger, for example by flashing lights and sounding the horn. Also at this point, or earlier in the sequence, the system interrogates the internal fire-detection sensors, if any, and issues an urgent alarm if fire is detected.”)
Newman also teaches generate, by parsing the sensor data and the sub-systems data, a set of critical data to transmit to the at least one responding party, the set of critical data including data identifying the one or more evolving current hazards; and transmit a message to the at least one responding party including the set of critical data and a location of the vehicle (Col.47 Line 11-34 : #1409-1411: “If a secondary collision is not imminent, the flow proceeds to box 1409, warning other vehicles of the danger, for example by flashing lights and Sounding the horn. Also at this point, or earlier in the sequence, the system interrogates the internal fire-detection sensors, if any, and issues an urgent alarm if fire is detected. The computing means then takes steps to secure the subject vehicle (1410), for example by turning off the ignition, setting the parking brake, unlocking the doors, rolling down the windows. A difficult situation may arise when multiple threats are detected at the same time, such as a fire threat and an imminent second collision. In that case, the computing means would implement evasive action first, but would select as brief an evasion as possible, and then immediately stop and evacuate the occupants without taking the extra time to drive to the side of the road or anything else. The step of warning other vehicles 1409 and all other actions would be delayed until after the fire alarm step, but would proceed thereafter. Then, after the immediate life-saving actions are completed, the system then proceeds to transmit a help request message (1411), assuming it had not already done so when the collision became imminent.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qawami to incorporate the teachings of Feit and Newman to include at least one responding party computing device associated with one or more responding parties, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine one or more damages to the vehicle and to one or more external objects involved in the incident by analyzing the sensor data and the sub-systems data, the one or more damages including one or more evolving current hazards associated with the incident corresponding to at least one of fire or potential fire, the one or more current hazards evolving in real-time and detected by the one or more sensors; determine an incident response including categorizing the incident based upon a damage level of the one or more damages; identify at least one of the one or more responding parties based on the determined incident response; generate, by parsing the sensor data and the sub-systems data, a set of critical data to transmit to the at least one responding party, the set of critical data including data identifying the one or more evolving current hazards; and transmit a message to the at least one responding party including the set of critical data and a location of the vehicle. Doing so would optimize the process of incident response as disclosed in Feit and Newman.
Similarly Claims 9 and 16 are rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 2, Qawami in view of Feit and in further view of Newman teaches the computer system of claim 1.
Newman further teaches the one or more evolving current hazards correspond to at least one of fire or potential fire (Col.47 Line 14-16).
Similarly Claims 10 and 17 are rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 3, Qawami in view of Feit and in further view of Newman teaches the computer system of claim 1.
Qawami also teaches the at least one processor is further configured to receive, from the at least one vehicle control system, the incident data in response to the vehicle determining that the incident has occurred (Para [0035-0036]).
Similarly Claims 11 and 18 are rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 4, Qawami in view of Feit and in further view of Newman teaches the computer system of claim 1.
Qawami also teaches the at least one processor is further configured to determine, by analyzing the sensor data and the sub-systems data, one or more injuries to at least one of one or more occupants of the vehicle or one or more pedestrians (Para [0040]).
Similarly Claims 12 and 19 are rejected on the similar rational.
Claims 5-7, 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qawami in view of Feit and in further view of Newman and in further view of Kolasinski et al. (US9969344) and here in after will be referred as Kolasinski respectively.
Regarding Claim 5, Qawami in view of Feit and in further view of Newman teaches the computer system of claim 1.
Qawami may not expressly teaches determining the incident response further includes categorizing the incident based upon an injury level of one or more injuries to at least one of one or more occupants of the vehicle or one or more pedestrians.
Kolasinski teaches determining the incident response further includes categorizing the incident based upon an injury level of one or more injuries to at least one of one or more occupants of the vehicle or one or more pedestrians (Col.8 Line 6-37: “ In some embodiments, the emergency message includes an accident request based on the vehicle data. The accident request may include, for example, a request for particular equipment, a request for a particular number of emergency response vehicles, a request for a particular type of emergency response vehicle, another request, or a combination thereof. For example, when the electronic processor 60 determines that the total number of occupants of the vehicle 25 is four, the electronic processor 60 may generate an emergency message including a request for four ambulances. As a further example, when the electronic processor 60 determines that the orientation of the vehicle 25 is an up-side down orientation, the electronic processor 60 may generate an emergency message including a request for an appropriate type of emergency response vehicle for reorienting the vehicle 25 to a right-side up orientation. In some embodiments, the electronic processor 60 generates the accident request separate from the emergency message. For example, the electronic processor 60 may generate the emergency message and generate a separate accident request. After generating the emergency message, the electronic processor 60 automatically transmits the emergency message to an emergency responder (at block 105). The emergency responder may include, for example, an emergency operator, a police officer, a deputy sheriff, a firefighter, an emergency medical personnel (for example, a paramedic), another emergency responder, or a combination thereof. The electronic processor 60 may automatically transmit the emergency message when one or more occupants of the vehicle 25 are incapacitated.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qawami, Feit and Newman to incorporate the teachings of Kolasinski to include determining the incident response further includes categorizing the incident based upon an injury level of one or more injuries to at least one of one or more occupants of the vehicle or one or more pedestrians. Doing so would optimize the process of incident response as disclosed in Kolasinski.
Similarly Claims 13 and 20 are rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 6, Qawami in view of Feit and in further view of Newman and in further view of Kolasinski teaches the computer system of claim 5.
Kolasinski further teaches the at least one responding party includes paramedic services when the injury level requires assistance from the paramedic services, and wherein the at least one responding party includes fire department services when damage level requires assistance from the fire department services (Col.9 Line 1-17: “For example, the electronic processor 60 may identify a fire department category as the first emergency response category and an EMS category as the second emergency response category. The electronic processor 60 may automatically transmit a first emergency message having fire department specific accident information to an emergency responder included in the fire department category, such as a firefighter. Similarly, the electronic processor 60 may automatically transmit a second emergency message having EMS specific accident information to an emergency responder included in the EMS category, such as a paramedic. In other words, based on the vehicle data, the electronic processor 60 may identify that accident information (vehicle data) may be relevant to some emergency responders and may be irrelevant to other emergency responders, and automatically transmit one or more emergency messages accordingly.”).
Similarly Claim 14 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 7, Qawami in view of Feit and in further view of Newman teaches computer system of claim 1.
Kolasinski teaches the set of critical data is specific to the at least one responding party, wherein the set of critical data for paramedic services includes an injury assessment, and wherein the set of critical data for fire department services includes the one or more evolving current hazards (Col. 8 Line 46-52: “Based on the identified emergency response category, the electronic processor 60 may automatically transmit the emergency message to an emergency responder included in the identified emergency response category. In other words, by identifying an emergency response category based on the vehicle data, the electronic processor 60 may transmit the emergency message to an appropriate emergency responder as opposed to all possible emergency responders.”).
Similarly Claim 15 is rejected on the similar rational.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qawami in view of Feit and in further view of Newman and in further view of Suman et al. (US6028537) and here in after will be referred as Suman respectively.
Regarding Claim 8, Qawami in view of Feit and in further view of Newman teaches computer system of claim 1.
Qawami may not expressly teaches the at least one processor is further configured to transmit a command to the vehicle to cause the one or more sub-systems of the vehicle to perform a self-diagnostic and transmit self-diagnostic results to the at least one computing device.
Suman teaches the at least one processor is further configured to transmit a command to the vehicle to cause the one or more sub-systems of the vehicle to perform a self-diagnostic and transmit self-diagnostic results to the at least one computing device (Col.15 Line 52-63: “In the event the vehicle is provided with a self-diagnostic system that is connected to vehicle bus 42 or 86, the present invention may be used to allow for remote diagnostics to be performed on the vehicle. Thus, for example, when a vehicle has broken down along Side a remote highway, a Service Station may transmit an RF signal to the vehicle prompting the vehicle's System to transmit an RF signal back including any Self-diagnostic information Such that the tow truck responding to a request for roadside assistance may be properly equipped with the right tools to provide for the most-appropriate roadside assistance on the particular make and model Vehicle requesting Service.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qawami, Feit and Newman to incorporate the teachings of Suman to include the at least one processor is further configured to transmit a command to the vehicle to cause the one or more sub-systems of the vehicle to perform a self-diagnostic and transmit self-diagnostic results to the at least one computing device. Doing so would optimize the incident response as disclosed in Suman.
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 ABDHESH K JHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:0800-1700.
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, James J Lee can be reached on 571-270-5965. 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.
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
