DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 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.
Claims 21-29 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stearns (Pat. No.: 9,811,997 B2) in view of Nienhouse (Pub. No.: 2019/0311101 A1) and Stark (Pub. No.: 2004/0091123 A1).
1) In regard to claim 21, Stearns discloses the claimed method, executed in a processor of a mobile computing device, of deploying an ignition interlock device (figs. 2-19), the method comprising:
rendering a user interface at the mobile computing device (fig. 5),
the user interface including an indication of a status of the user account associated with the IID (fig. 6 and col. 12, lines 41-67),
a selection of a user action responsive to the status of the user account associated with the IID (fig. 5: 504).
Stearns does not explicitly disclose wherein the user interface comprises an indication of the status as a lowered power state of the IID in response to at least one of: an ambient temperature deviating from a threshold temperature value, and a vehicle battery charge level below a predetermined threshold level.
However, Nienhouse discloses it has been known for an ignition interlock method to determine a status (¶0240).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the method of Stearns to provide an indication, as taught by Nienhouse.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Stearns as described above in order to provide the user with updated information regarding the device.
Furthermore, Stark discloses it is known for a vehicle system with an ignition lock to transmit a signal to a user’s mobile device and provide on a user interface an indication of a status as a lowered power state of a vehicle/ignition lock in response to at least one of: an ambient temperature deviating from a threshold temperature value, and a vehicle battery charge level below a predetermined threshold level (¶0077 and ¶0085).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the method of Stearns to provide an indication of a power state of a vehicle battery, as taught by Stark.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Stearns as described above in order to allow the user to quickly determine and cope with the vehicle event.
2) In regard to claim 22 (dependent on claim 21), Stearns, Nienhouse and Stark further disclose the method of claim 21, wherein the user interface comprises guidance for reinstating a user's vehicle operation license privileges (Nienhouse ¶0053).
3) In regard to claim 23 (dependent on claim 22), Stearns, Nienhouse and Stark further disclose the method of claim 22, wherein the guidance is based on data collected by the mobile computing device (Stearns col. 12, lines 41-67).
4) In regard to claim 24 (dependent on claim 22), Stearns, Nienhouse and Stark further disclose the method of claim 22, wherein the guidance is based on data comprising any of: device data, environmental conditions, state rules regarding IID usage, and historical records of the user's behavior (Stearns fig. 8).
5) In regard to claim 25 (dependent on claim 21), Stearns, Nienhouse and Stark further disclose the method of claim 21, further comprising rendering second user interface at the mobile computer device indicating the status as a lockout in progress (Stearns fig. 5 and col. 6, lines 5-9).
6) In regard to claim 26 (dependent on claim 25), Stearns, Nienhouse and Stark further disclose the method of claim 25, further comprising soliciting, in response to the lockout in progress, at least one of a lockout reset and initiation of a communication session with an IID service provider associated with the user account (Nienhouse ¶0247).
7) In regard to claim 27 (dependent on claim 25), Stearns, Nienhouse and Stark further disclose the method of claim 25.
Stearns, Nienhouse and Stark do not explicitly disclose rendering identification of a re-calibration service facility determined as one of: geographically proximate to a registered location associated with the user account, and geographically proximate to a current location of the IID.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a vehicle system to render identification of a re-calibration service facility determined as one of: geographically proximate to a registered location associated with the user account, and geographically proximate to a current location of the IID.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the method of Stearns to provide receive geographic location of a service facility in response to its location.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Stearns as described above in order to keep the maintenance updated on the device.
8) In regard to claim 28 (dependent on claim 21), Stearns, Nienhouse and Stark further disclose the method of claim 21, further comprising collecting data from logs about the IID, collecting data from a vehicle associated with the IID, and generating a notification to the user based on the collected data (Nienhouse fig. 5).
9) In regard to claim 29 (dependent on claim 28), Stearns, Nienhouse and Stark further disclose the method of claim 28.
Stearns, Nienhouse and Stark do not explicitly disclose the collected data indicates any: of problems with operation of the IID or possible efforts to tamper with the IID, and wherein the notification comprises a message indicating that the IID may need servicing.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a vehicle system to be able to collect data and indicate any of the problems with operation of the IID or possible efforts to tamper with the IID, and wherein the notification comprises a message indicating that the IID may need servicing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the method of Stearns to indicate a problem regarding the IID.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Stearns as described above in order to keep the maintenance up to date on the device.
10) In regard to claim 39, claim 39 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
11) In regard to claim 40 (dependent on claim 39), claim 40 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
Claims 30-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nienhouse (Pub. No.: 2019/0311101 A1) in view of Stearns (Pat. No.: 9,811,997 B2).
1) In regard to claim 30, Nienhouse discloses the claimed method, executed in a processor of a mobile computing device, of deploying an ignition interlock device (fig. 1: 106), the method comprising:
gathering data to create historical records of behavior and outcomes for a user of the IID (fig. 5 and ¶0089);
accessing data regarding historical records of aggregate IID user behavior and outcomes (fig. 5 and ¶0089);
rendering a user interface at the mobile computing device, the user interface including an indication of a status of the user account associated with the IID (fig. 2),
Nienhouse does not explicitly disclose the user interface comprises a recommendation to the user based on the gathered data, and receiving a selection of a user action responsive to the status of the user account associated with the IID.
However, Stearns discloses has been known for a mobile device to provide a user interface comprises a recommendation to the user based on the gathered data, and receiving a selection of a user action responsive to the status of the user account associated with the IID (fig. 5 and col. 11, lines 1-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the method of Nienhouse to present a recommendation and receive a reply from the user of the device, as taught by Stearns.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Nienhouse as described above in order to allow a user to monitor and record safety related information and facilitate communication of this information, as taught by Stearns (col. 1, lines 17-21).
2) In regard to claim 31 (dependent on claim 30), Nienhouse and Stearns further disclose the method of claim 30, wherein the recommendation is dynamically populated based on the tenure of the user (Nienhouse fig. 5).
3) In regard to claim 32 (dependent on claim 31), Nienhouse and Stearns further disclose the method of claim 31, wherein the recommendation is based on the state the user is located in (Stearns fig. 8).
4) In regard to claim 33 (dependent on claim 31), Nienhouse and Stearns further disclose the method of claim 31, wherein the recommendation is based on data comprising any of device data, environmental conditions, and state rules regarding IID usage (Stearns col. 10, lines 44-65).
5) In regard to claim 34 (dependent on claim 30), Nienhouse and Stearns further disclose the method of claim 30, wherein the user interface further comprises information generated from vehicle data logs and from IID data logs (Nienhouse ¶0089).
6) In regard to claim 35 (dependent on claim 31), Nienhouse and Stearns further disclose the method of claim 31, wherein the information indicates problems with the operation of the IID, and the recommendation comprises guidance for the user to bring the IID in for servicing (col. 10, lines 44-65).
7) In regard to claim 36 (dependent on claim 30), Nienhouse and Stearns further disclose the method of claim 30.
Nienhouse and Stearns do not explicitly disclose the user interface comprises tutorials on how to use the IID.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a user interface to provide a tutorial regarding a device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the method of Nienhouse to provide a tutorial via a user device.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Nienhouse as described above in order to provide the user with an accessible means to allow a user of the device an instructional media to view regarding the device.
8) In regard to claim 37 (dependent on claim 30), Nienhouse and Stearns further disclose the method of claim 30 further comprising collecting data from logs about the IID, collecting data from a vehicle associated with the IID, and generating a notification to the user based on the collected data (Nienhouse fig. 2).
9) In regard to claim 38 (dependent on claim 37), Nienhouse and Stearns further disclose the method of claim 37.
Nienhouse and Stearns do not explicitly disclose the collected data indicates any: of problems with operation of the IID or possible efforts to tamper with the IID, and wherein the notification comprises a message indicating that the IID may need servicing.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a vehicle system to be able to collect data and indicate any of the problems with operation of the IID or possible efforts to tamper with the IID, and wherein the notification comprises a message indicating that the IID may need servicing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the method of Stearns to indicate a problem regarding the IID.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Stearns as described above in order to keep the maintenance up to date on the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 EST.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights