CTNF 19/060,218 CTNF 91490 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 dated 02/21/2025 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-20 are pending examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18 and 20 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over M artinez et al. (Emergency Services in Future Intelligent Transportation Systems Based on Vehicular Communications Networks: IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine Summer 2010) in view of Seth et al. (US 2019/0244301) and here in after will be referred as Martinez and Seth respectively. R egarding Claim 1, Martinez 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, and at least one responding party computing device associated with one or more responding parties , (Fig5 presented below), PNG media_image1.png 600 948 media_image1.png Greyscale Martinez also teaches determine …. 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 (Table 7: “Characteristics of the freight -To provide detailed information about the freight of some special vehicles (such as trucks) to allow rescue services to anticipate the severity of the accident, and to prepare the necessary tools and machinery needed for the accident site .” Here necessary anticipate the severity of the accident is being interpreted as evolving hazards associated with the incident). Martinez 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 hazards; and transmit a message to the at least one responding party including the set of critical data and a location of the vehicle (Table 7 and Page 13 : “The information shown in Table 7 is essential in future emergency services. Basically , the information to be sent after an accident should include the following: (a) the time when the accident has occurred, (b) the location of the vehicle to determine the location of the injured, (c) the characteristics of the vehicle (allowing rescue services to send appropriate equipment to the accident site, and to warn1 them about the level of complexity and dangers), (d) the characteristics and identities of the occupants, such as the number of passengers, their features (height, weight, etc.), and the severity of their injuries are important information to be transmitted, and finally, (e) the characteristics of the accident, such as the speed and acceleration of the vehicle when the impact occurred, the points of impact, the direction of impact force, and the position of the vehicle after the impact. All these information help in determining the severity of the impact, making it possible to save lives, manage resources efficiently, and enable crashed vehicles to be removed from the site, restoring traffic flow quickly.”). PNG media_image2.png 624 929 media_image2.png Greyscale Martinez may not expressly 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; 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. In similar field of endeavor, Seth teaches receive, from the at least one control vehicle system, a notification of an incident including (i)sensor data from one or more sensors included within or in communication with the vehicle (Para [0013] : “an accident analysis system may employ a set of logical rules and/or procedures that are specially-coded to (i ) detect and/or verify accident occurrences (e.g., auto, home, and/or business” “ According to some embodiments, an automatic accident analysis system may capture data from a variety of sensors disposed to collect data descriptive of the accident and/or accident scene.”) and (ii) sub-system data from one or more subsystem of the vehicle (Para [0044] : “ In the case of a vehicle air bag and/or other system status sensor, the application may receive an indication that a status has changed, where the status change is not stored as an ‘acceptable’ status and/or is specifically stored as an ‘emergency’ or accident indicative status—e.g., an air bag status changing from active or “ready” to “deployed”. In some embodiments, in the case that a comparison of sensor data to stored thresholds and/or rules causes a determination of an “accident” status, a flag may be updated in a memory or database and/or may be transmitted to various electronic components and/or devices (e.g., as an accident alert signal)”); Seth also teaches 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 (Para [0044] : “In some embodiments, the method 400 may comprise initiating (e.g., by the electronic processing device) an accident response, at 408 . Stored rules may govern, for example, an appropriate and/or desired response based on various attributes of the accident event. A type of the accident (e.g., based on sensor readings and/or stored type-analysis rules) may be determined, for example, and the response may be based on the accident type. In the case of a serious accident, such as a rollover crash (e.g., as potentially indicated by a gyroscopic sensor of a mobile device and/or vehicle), for example, emergency services may be automatically contacted, alerted, and/or summoned, without requiring or waiting for any driver/user input. In the case of a minor accident, such as a “fender bender” (e.g., as indicated by an affirmative indication of an accident by the driver/user and an “offline” status of a proximity sensor mounted on a bumper of the driver's vehicle), a text message may be sent to a family member and/or a listing of local repair shops, claim centers, etc., may be provided (e.g., based on a location-based database query utilizing the vehicle's current location as a variable). In some embodiments, an accident response may comprise a generation, definition, and/or identification of an accident and/or incident checklist (e.g., from a plurality of checklists and/or checklist components stored in a memory device), and/or the provision (e.g., outputting) of the checklist to the driver/user/customer (e.g., the accident checklist 520 - 11 of FIG. 5C herein). In such a manner, for example, a listing of required (or suggested) action items or an “accident response plan” may be developed and output to a user to facilitate guidance through the post-accident process. In some embodiments, an accident response may comprise a triggering or initiation of an insurance claims process, e.g., by transmitting accident detection and/or detail information to a remote insurance claims device”); Seth 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 [0044]: “In some embodiments, the method 400 may comprise initiating (e.g., by the electronic processing device) an accident response, at 408 . Stored rules may govern, for example, an appropriate and/or desired response based on various attributes of the accident event. A type of the accident (e.g., based on sensor readings and/or stored type-analysis rules) may be determined, for example, and the response may be based on the accident type . In the case of a serious accident, such as a rollover crash (e.g., as potentially indicated by a gyroscopic sensor of a mobile device and/or vehicle), for example, emergency services may be automatically contacted, alerted, and/or summoned, without requiring or waiting for any driver/user input. In the case of a minor accident, such as a “fender bender” (e.g., as indicated by an affirmative indication of an accident by the driver/user and an “offline” status of a proximity sensor mounted on a bumper of the driver's vehicle), a text message may be sent to a family member and/or a listing of local repair shops, claim centers, etc., may be provided (e.g., based on a location-based database query utilizing the vehicle's current location as a variable) . In some embodiments, an accident response may comprise a generation, definition, and/or identification of an accident and/or incident checklist (e.g., from a plurality of checklists and/or checklist components stored in a memory device), and/or the provision (e.g., outputting) of the checklist to the driver/user/customer (e.g., the accident checklist 520 - 11 of FIG. 5C herein). In such a manner, for example, a listing of required (or suggested) action items or an “accident response plan” may be developed and output to a user to facilitate guidance through the post-accident process. In some embodiments, an accident response may comprise a triggering or initiation of an insurance claims process, e.g., by transmitting accident detection and/or detail information to a remote insurance claims device”). 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 Martinez to incorporate the teachings of Seth to include 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. Doing so would assist the user in an accident more effectively by assist in expediting the summoning of emergency services to an accident scene as disclosed in Seth in Para [0002]. Similarly Claims 9 and 16 are rejected on the similar rational. Regarding Claim 2, Martinez in view of Seth teaches the computer system of claim 1. Martinez also teaches wherein the one or more evolving hazards correspond to at least one of fire or potential fire (Table 7: “Characteristics of the freight -To provide detailed information about the freight of some special vehicles (such as trucks) to allow rescue services to anticipate the severity of the accident, and to prepare the necessary tools and machinery needed for the accident site .” Here necessary anticipate the severity of the accident is being interpreted as evolving hazards associated with the incident). Similarly Claims 10 and 17 are rejected on the similar rational. Regarding Claim 3, Martinez in view of Seth teaches the computer system of claim 1. Seth also teaches wherein 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 [0045]). Similarly Claims 11 and 18 are rejected on the similar rational. Regarding Claim 5, Martinez in view of Seth teaches the computer system of claim 1. Seth also teaches wherein 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 (Para [0044]: “. A type of the accident (e.g., based on sensor readings and/or stored type-analysis rules) may be determined, for example, and the response may be based on the accident type. In the case of a serious accident, such as a rollover crash (e.g., as potentially indicated by a gyroscopic sensor of a mobile device and/or vehicle), for example, emergency services may be automatically contacted, alerted, and/or summoned, without requiring or waiting for any driver/user input. In the case of a minor accident, such as a “fender bender” (e.g., as indicated by an affirmative indication of an accident by the driver/user...” ). Similarly Claims 13 and 20 are rejected on the similar rational. Regarding Claim 6, Martinez in view of Seth teaches the computer system of claim 5. Martinez also teaches wherein 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 (table 7). Similarly Claim 14 is rejected on the similar rational. Regarding Claim 7, Martinez in view of Seth teaches the computer system of claim 1. Seth also teaches wherein 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 (Para [0044]), Martinez teaches wherein the set of critical data for fire department services includes the one or more evolving hazards (Table 7 and as discussed above in claim 1). Similarly Claim 15 is rejected on the similar rational . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez in view of Seth and in further view of EP’469 and in further view of Connery et al. (US20150100348A1) and here in after will be referred as EP’469 and Connery respectively . Regarding Claim 4, Martinez in view of Seth teaches the incident management system of Claim 1. EP’469 teaches wherein 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 [0008]: “sensing and/or collecting data related to the vehicle and/or its equipment, called vehicle data hereinafter; - assessing, based on said vehicle data, biomechanical and/or biomedical data related to one or more vehicle passengers , called passenger data hereinafter; - transmitting said passenger data to an emergency centre when the vehicle data or the passenger data meet one or more predetermined conditions.”). 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 Martinez and Seth to incorporate the teachings of EP’469 to include wherein 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. Doing so would assist the user in an accident more effectively. Similarly Claims 12 and 19 are rejected on the similar rational . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez in view of Seth and in further view of Suman et al. (US6028537) and here in after will be referred as Suman . Regarding Claim 8, Martinez in view of Seth teaches the computer system of claim 1. Martinez may not expressly teach 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: “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 Martinez and Seth to incorporate the teachings of Suman to include the processor is further programmed to transmit a command to the vehicle to cause sub- systems of the vehicle to perform a self-diagnostic and transmit self-diagnostic results to the IM computing device. Doing so would assist the user in an accident more effectively . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bivens et al. (US8576066B2) discloses an emergency event is determined to have occurred. A set of civilian responders currently available to respond to the emergency event is selected from a plurality of civilian responders in response to determining that the emergency event has occurred. Each civilian responder in the set of civilian responders is associated with at least one wireless communication device. The set of civilian responders is notified that the emergency event has occurred. A set of emergency event information associated with the emergency event is transmitted to at least one wireless communication device associated with each civilian responder in the set of civilian responders. 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 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 2 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 3 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 4 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 5 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 6 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 7 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 8 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 9 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 10 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 11 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 12 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 13 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 14 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 15 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 16 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 17 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 18 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 19 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 20 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 21 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 22 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 23 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 24 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 25 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 26 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 27 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 28 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/060,218 Page 29 Art Unit: 3668
Prosecution Insights