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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Examine recommends amending paragraph 1 of the specification, regarding the cross-reference to related applications, to include the published patent number for U.S. Application No. 17/962,888 for consistency purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, line 2, “a first region and a second region not overlap with each other” should read “a first region and a second region which do not overlap with each other”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, the phrase “controlling to adjust the visual information of the one region to obtain adjusted visual information” is indefinite. It is unclear what is being controlled or how the adjusted visual information is obtained. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted the limitation as “adjusting the visual information of the one region”.
Claims 2-18 and 20 are rejected for being dependent on a previously rejected base claim.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method of controlling a user interface display (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
controlling a user interface of a client device to display one or more regions;
controlling the user interface to, for each of the one or more regions, display visual information corresponding to an access level of the region at the region displayed on the user interface, the access level of each region being one of a plurality of access levels having different restrictions on whether and how the client device or a movable object controlled by the client device accesses the region, and different ones of the plurality of access levels having different visual information; and
in response to the access level of one region of the one or more regions changing [mental process/step], controlling to adjust the visual information of the one region to obtain adjusted visual information, and controlling the user interface to display the adjusted visual information at the one region displayed on the user interface.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the access level of one region changing in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement such as identifying a change in the data. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method comprising:
controlling a user interface of a client device to display one or more regions [insignificant pre-solution activity (displaying data)];
controlling the user interface to, for each of the one or more regions, display visual information corresponding to an access level of the region at the region displayed on the user interface, the access level of each region being one of a plurality of access levels having different restrictions on whether and how the client device or a movable object controlled by the client device accesses the region, and different ones of the plurality of access levels having different visual information [insignificant pre-solution activity (displaying data)]; and
in response to the access level of one region of the one or more regions changing, controlling to adjust the visual information of the one region to obtain adjusted visual information, and controlling the user interface to display the adjusted visual information at the one region displayed on the user interface [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results of the mental process)].
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “display one or more regions…,” “display visual information…,” and “display the adjusted visual information…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In particular, the displaying steps on the user interface are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying access level data of regions), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additionally, displaying the adjusted visual information is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying updated access level data after changes are identified) which is a form of insignificant post-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of “display one or more regions…,” “display visual information…,” and “display the adjusted visual information…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Additional Claims
Independent claim 19 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-13, 15-18, and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such as controlling the client device and/or the movable object to enter or avoid one of the regions. Therefore, dependent claims 2-13, 15-18, and 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-13 and 15-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-11, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Johnson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0278409; hereinafter Johnson).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson teaches a method comprising: controlling a user interface of a client device to display one or more regions (Johnson: Par. 35; i.e., the ground control system (GCS) 213 may also act as a user device for interacting with the flight planning system… GCS 213 can present on a display of GCS 213 a time-based graphical representation of a flight through the reserved airspace based on the information received from flight planning system 201; the reserved airspace is displayed on the user device);
controlling the user interface to, for each of the one or more regions, display visual information corresponding to an access level of the region at the region displayed on the user interface (Johnson: Par. 96; i.e., if the airspace is available (e.g., has not already been reserved), flight planning system 201 can send a message to the UAV operator confirming that the airspace needed for the operator's flight plan is available; Par. 34; i.e., flight planning system 201 includes a flight description module 210 that can generate interactive user interfaces for presentation on a user device; a message indicating the airspace is available is displayed on the user device),
the access level of each region being one of a plurality of access levels having different restrictions on whether and how the client device or a movable object controlled by the client device accesses the region (Johnson: Par. 52; i.e., airspace management system 350 determines that the airspace needed for the flight plan is available; Par. 53; i.e., the requested airspace is not available (e.g., the airspace has already been reserved); Par. 48; i.e., an airspace block may be a special use block and have associated use requirements/restrictions, such as an available time that the block may be used, the type of UAV that may use the block, or UAV payload device requirements, or restrictions; the access levels may include available and not available and may have varying restrictions),
and different ones of the plurality of access levels having different visual information (Johnson: Par. 53; i.e., airspace management system 350 can indicate the reason for the rejection in flight authorization response 316. For example, the rejection reason can be that the requested airspace is not available; Par. 96; i.e., if the airspace is available (e.g., has not already been reserved), flight planning system 201 can send a message to the UAV operator confirming that the airspace needed for the operator's flight plan is available; the visual information indicates the access levels for each region as available or unavailable);
and in response to the access level of one region of the one or more regions changing, controlling to adjust the visual information of the one region to obtain adjusted visual information, and controlling the user interface to display the adjusted visual information at the one region displayed on the user interface (Johnson: Par. 100-101; i.e., flight planning system 201 can send a message to operator devices indicating that rejected flight plans were rejected by the approval authority (e.g., approval system). For approved flight plans, flight planning system 201 can generate flight data packages that describe the approved flight plans, modifications to the flight plans, and/or any additional restrictions or requirements specified by the approval authority… flight planning system 201 can transmit the flight data packages to the UAV operator devices; modifications to the flight plans such as airspace becoming available, are displayed on the user device).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson teaches the method according to claim 1. Johnson further teaches wherein the access level of one region of the one or more regions is predetermined by a user, or is predetermined by an administrator or application developer and modified by the user (Johnson: Par. 44; i.e., airspace reservation module 302 can receive and process airspace reservation requests received from operator devices; Par. 45; i.e., a government entity (e.g., the Federal Aviation Administration) or a private entity may be tasked with managing airspace for a geospatial region; the access levels of the regions are predetermined by the government entity and are modified by a user requesting access to specific regions).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson teaches the method according to claim 1. Johnson further teaches wherein the plurality of access levels include one or more of: a first level where access is generally allowed; a second level where access is unlockable by presenting credential information; a third level where access is prohibited; and a fourth level where access is allowed with one or more operation restrictions (Johnson: Par. 46; i.e., airspace management system 350 can determine whether to approve flight authorization request 314 based on a variety of criteria. These criteria can include … the experience and/or credentials of the UAV pilot; Par. 48; i.e., an airspace block may be a special use block and have associated use requirements/restrictions).
Regarding claim 6, Johnson teaches the method according to claim 1. Johnson further teaches wherein the access level of one region of the one or more regions is a level where access is unlockable by presenting credential information (Johnson: Par. 46; i.e., airspace management system 350 can determine whether to approve flight authorization request 314 based on a variety of criteria. These criteria can include … the experience and/or credentials of the UAV pilot; Par. 52; i.e., if airspace management system 350 determines that … the UAV pilot has the appropriate experience and credentials for the airspace, then the airspace management system 350 can approve the flight authorization request).
Regarding claim 7, Johnson teaches the method according to claim 6. Johnson further teaches wherein the one region is unlockable for a predetermined time (Johnson: Par. 47; i.e., for airspace reservations, blocks may be contiguously reserved for a UAV for flight along its planned flight path. The use of the airspace may be limited to a specified time, or duration; Par. 51; i.e., effectively, an airspace block may be a time-based geofence).
Regarding claim 8, Johnson teaches the method according to claim 6. Johnson further teaches sending a request to unlock the one region of the one or more regions before entering the one region (Johnson: Par. 45; i.e., flight planning system 201 can send flight authorization request 314 to airspace management system 350 for approval of one or more of the flight plans in flight authorization request 314; the request would include a request to unlock, or allocate, a restricted airspace).
Regarding claim 9, Johnson teaches the method according to claim 8. Johnson further teaches after the request to unlock the one region is approved, receiving an unlock response granting access to the one region (Johnson: Par. 50; i.e., when a flight authorization request, or a flight plan is approved, the flight planning system 201 may receive from the airspace management system 350 information identifying the airspace blocks that have been allocated for use by a UAV; the flight authorization response includes allowing access to the previously locked region, rendering it unlocked),
the unlock response including at least one constraint (Johnson: Par. 97; i.e., flight planning system 201 can adjust the takeoff/landing areas, waypoints, flight times, so that the flight plans fit within the geospatial and time constraints of the available airspace).
Regarding claim 10, Johnson teaches the method according to claim 9. Johnson further teaches wherein the at least one constraint includes at least one of a temporal constraint, a user profile constraint, or a movable object identifier constraint (Johnson: Par. 97; i.e., flight planning system 201 can adjust the takeoff/landing areas, waypoints, flight times, so that the flight plans fit within the geospatial and time constraints of the available airspace).
Regarding claim 11, Johnson teaches the method according to claim 8. Johnson further teaches wherein the request includes a region identifier associated with the one region (Johnson: Par. 47; i.e., each block may have a unique identifier and/or geospatial coordinates that define the boundaries of the block).
Regarding claim 14, Johnson teaches the method according to claim 8. Johnson further teaches in response to receiving an unlock response refusing access to the one region, controlling the client device and/or the movable object to not enter the one region (Johnson: Par. 91; i.e., flight planning system 201 can send a message to operator devices indicating that rejected flight plans were rejected by the approval authority; Par. 51; i.e., the UAV may be configured to treat each airspace block as a geofence such that during flight the UAV may not fly beyond the boundaries of a particular airspace block).
Regarding claim 17, Johnson teaches the method according to claim 1. Johnson further teaches determining the access level of each of the one or more regions (Johnson: Par. 95; i.e., flight planning system 201 can receive a reply message from airspace management system 350 indicating blocks of airspace within the specified geospatial area and within the time period of interest that are not currently reserved for UAV operations; regions that are available are determined).
Regarding claim 18, Johnson teaches the method according to claim 1. Johnson further teaches receiving navigation data identifying a planned route to be traveled by the movable object controlled by the client device (Johnson: Par. 96; i.e., At step 706, flight planning system 201 can receive one or more UAV flight plans);
and determining at least one region of the one or more regions associated with the planned route (Johnson: Par. 47; i.e., blocks may be contiguously reserved for a UAV for flight along its planned flight path; Par. 95; i.e., flight planning system 201 can receive a reply message from airspace management system 350 indicating blocks of airspace within the specified geospatial area; the airspace blocks are associated with the flight plan).
Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson and further in view of Suiter et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9310222; hereinafter Suiter).
Regarding claim 2, Johnson teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the visual information includes a color of an outline of the one or more regions, or a color of an overlay of the one or more regions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Suiter teaches wherein the visual information includes a color of an outline of the one or more regions, or a color of an overlay of the one or more regions (Suiter: Col. 20, lines 29-30; i.e., ALS suitability may be represented and displayed by color-coded icons; Col. 28, lines 62-65; i.e., KDEN and KCOS are both rated “green” as a suitable ALS, while KBKF is assessed and rated “red” despite its proximity due to lack of appropriate facilities; colors are displayed according to the accessibility of each region).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Johnson to have further incorporated wherein the visual information includes a color of an outline of the one or more regions, or a color of an overlay of the one or more regions, as taught by Suiter. Doing so would provide assistance to the user in making decisions that may affect the route (Suiter: Col. 3, lines 5-7; i.e., a graphical display of range data on the primary flight display or screen may aid the pilot in decision-making).
Regarding claim 3, Johnson in view of Suiter teaches the method according to claim 2. Johnson further teaches wherein: the one or more regions include a first region and a second region not overlap with each other; the access level of the first region is different from the access level of the second region (Johnson: Par. 47; i.e., airspace may be organized using volumetric blocks (or other shapes) of space… blocks may be contiguously reserved for a UAV for flight along its planned flight path; Par. 52; i.e., airspace management system 350 determines that the airspace needed for the flight plan is available; Par. 53; i.e., the requested airspace is not available (e.g., the airspace has already been reserved); the non-overlapping airspace blocks may include available and not available access levels).
Suiter further teaches the color of the outline of the first region displayed on the user interface is different from the color of the outline of the second region displayed on the user interface, or the color of the overlay of the first region displayed on the user interface is different from the color of the overlay of the second region displayed on the user interface (Suiter: Col. 20, lines 29-30; i.e., ALS suitability may be represented and displayed by color-coded icons; Col. 28, lines 62-65; i.e., KDEN and KCOS are both rated “green” as a suitable ALS, while KBKF is assessed and rated “red” despite its proximity due to lack of appropriate facilities; colors are displayed according to the accessibility of each region).
Regarding claim 15, Johnson teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach controlling the user interface to display type information of each of the one or more regions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Suiter teaches controlling the user interface to display type information of each of the one or more regions (Suiter: Col. 23, lines 65-67; i.e., the system may then evaluate and rank available landing sites within a given radius, storing the results and displaying them to the pilot via display unit; Col. 27; lines 9-15; i.e., FIG. 17A and FIG. 17B depict embodiments of the present invention displaying onscreen divert options… Three potential alternative landing sites are indicated along with their distance, heading, and suitability status).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Johnson to have further incorporated controlling the user interface to display type information of each of the one or more regions, as taught by Suiter. Doing so would provide assistance to the user in making decisions that may affect the route (Suiter: Col. 3, lines 5-7; i.e., a graphical display of range data on the primary flight display or screen may aid the pilot in decision-making).
Regarding claim 16, Johnson in view of Suiter teaches the method according to claim 15. Suiter further teaches wherein the type information of one region of the one or more regions is predetermined by a user (Suiter: Col. 39, lines 14-15; i.e., alternative landing sites may be prioritized according to pilot preferences; displayed types of alternative landing sites are predetermined based on pilot preferences).
Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson and further in view of Pierce II et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10672226; hereinafter Pierce).
Regarding claim 12, Johnson teaches the method according to claim 8. Johnson further teaches verifying the request to unlock the one region (Johnson: Par. 60; i.e., operator device 310 can confirm modifications to the approved flight plan received in flight data package 318).
Johnson does not explicitly teach controlling the user interface to display a log-in interface, the log-in interface being configured to receive the credential information associated with a user to be verified and send the credential information to an authentication server; and receiving an authentication result message from the authentication server.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Pierce teaches controlling the user interface to display a log-in interface (Pierce: Col. 26, lines 7-15; i.e., in step 802, user application 217 requests the user to authenticate (login)), the log-in interface being configured to receive the credential information associated with a user to be verified and send the credential information to an authentication server (Pierce: Col. 26, lines 7-15; i.e., the user enters a set of credentials for authentication verification. In step 803, a request to for authentication verification is sent to VGZ server 201. In step 804, VGZ server 201 verifies the user credentials); and receiving an authentication result message from the authentication server (Pierce: Col. 26, lines 7-15; i.e., in step 805, a user authentication verification is sent to user device 205. In step 806, the user is authenticated and the verification is displayed on user device 205).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Johnson to have further incorporated controlling the user interface to display a log-in interface, the log-in interface being configured to receive the credential information associated with a user to be verified and send the credential information to an authentication server; and receiving an authentication result message from the authentication server, as taught by Pierce. Doing so would allow the system to verify users and prevent unauthorized users from gaining access to the regions (Pierce: Col. 17, lines 1-5; i.e., once user 333 has authenticated, an entry is made in system log database 234 and user application 217 verifies that user 333 is inside the perimeter of security perimeter zone 378).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Pierce and further in view of Beaurepaire (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0146350; hereinafter Beaurepaire).
Regarding claim 13, Johnson in view of Pierce teaches the method according to claim 12, but does not explicitly teach wherein the credential information includes a token identifier.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Beaurepaire teaches wherein the credential information includes a token identifier (Beaurepaire: Par. 61; i.e., the querying module 205 may approve admission to the at least one restricted access area based, at least in part, successful authentication of the access credentials. In one scenario, the access credentials may include a security token (a virtual token)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Johnson and Pierce to have further incorporated wherein the credential information includes a token identifier, as taught by Beaurepaire. Doing so would improve overall security and avoid the need for using PIN codes to verify credentials (Pierce: Par. 33; i.e., this increases driver safety because the driver does not need to spend time calling or messaging his/her friend to request for access right and possibly writing down PIN codes).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art deemed pertinent in the art of displaying access level data associated with different regions includes Taveira (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0253907), Kube et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0240087), Yamasaki et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0302835), and Kontturi (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0158267).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON Z WILLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:00-5:30.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/BRANDON Z WILLIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights