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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/19/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by MIU (US Pub. 2017/0187707).
Regarding claim 1,
Miu teaches a method to alert Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs), comprising:
receiving, by a Vehicle Identification and Secure Operating Program (VISOP) of a motor vehicle, operator information corresponding to an operator of the motor vehicle ([0022] teaches that a police officer may inspect received information from a display of the onboard vehicle system after a regular traffic stop (e.g., stop-and-frisk); [0020] teaches the transmission may allow the onboard system on the vehicle to display or communicate information including a digital driver's license to a law enforcement officer);
receiving, by the VISOP, vehicle identifying information corresponding to the motor vehicle ([0015] teaches that information received from the onboard vehicle system includes vehicle registration information, or vehicle identification);
checking, by the VISOP, the operator information for operator concerns related to the operator of the motor vehicle, including a status of a driver's license of the operator ([0022] teaches that information encoding the user's digital driver's license may be transmitted from the onboard vehicle system to a device of the police officer. The police officer may be cruising on the highway and may also inspect such information from a display of the onboard vehicle system; [0063] teaches that the law enforcement official, on highway patrol, may confirm that drivers are duly licensed without having to stop the vehicles);
checking, by the VISOP, the vehicle identifying information for vehicle concerns related to the motor vehicle, including a status of the motor vehicle([0064] teaches the user device of the law enforcement officer may verify the vehicle registration information or the insurance status information; [0063] teaches that law enforcement official may confirm insurance status without having to stop the vehicles); and
issuing, by the VISOP, an alert to an LEO, responsive to finding the operator concerns and the vehicle concerns, the alert including an indication of the operator concerns and the vehicle concerns(see at least 210b in fig. 2; [0048] teaches the display of respective user information associated driver in question 210a, 210b, and 210c).
Regarding claim 2,
Miu teaches that the Vehicle Media Access Control address (VMAC) with the alert, the VMAC being a unique identifier that is tied to the motor vehicle and cannot be modified by the operator ([0015] teaches that the vehicle information may include vehicle title information, vehicle registration information, or vehicle identification (VIN)).
Regarding claim 3,
Miu teaches that the vehicle identifying information comprises at least one of: an indication that the motor vehicle is color changing and a current color of the motor vehicle, or an indication that the motor vehicle is shape changing and a current physical configuration of a shape of the motor vehicle, the method further comprising the VISOP associating the at least one of the indications with the alert ([0022] teaches that the system is useful to the police officer when prompted to search for more details from surrounding vehicles, for example, during an amber alert.)
Regarding claim 4,
Miu teaches that the VISOP receiving the operator information by securely reading, via an electronic reader coupled to the VISOP, the operator information from a physical license or an Electronic License (E-License) of the operator ([0016] teaches the information may be in the form of a digital driver's license. In this case, the onboard vehicle system may compare the information from the digital driver's license with a database of authorized drivers).
Regarding claim 8,
Miu teaches checking, by the VISOP, for at least one of an unauthenticated operator, incorrect color, incorrect shape, being reported as stolen, or being tampered with; and responsive to the checking, including a self-reporting alert with the alert, the self-reporting alert indicating that the motor vehicle is compromised ([0022] teaches that the police officer may be cruising on the highway and may be prompted to search for more details from surrounding vehicles and information may be exchanged between vehicles. Further, the presence of a vehicle and its registration/license information may be proactively broadcast to its surroundings and received by a neighboring vehicle).
Regarding claim 9,
Miu teaches determining, by the VISOP, that the status of the driver's license of the operator is not approved to operate the motor vehicle, based on at least one of i) the operator not possessing correct endorsements to operate a make and a model of the motor vehicle, or ii) the operator having a legal restriction currently levied against them that would prevent operation of the motor vehicle at a present time (see at least 210b and 210c in fig. 2; [0048] teaches the display respective driver information associated each of the drivers 210a, 210b, and 210c).
Regarding claim 10,
Miu teaches that the vehicle identifying information includes that which would be obtained in a normal course of a traffic stop of the motor vehicle ([0021] teaches stop-and-frisk operations; [0022] teaches use in regular traffic stops), and includes at least one of a registration ([0014]), a license plate, or a car insurance ([0014]) of the motor vehicle; and the alert to the LEO indicates vehicle concerns regarding issues with such vehicle identifying information (210, 210c in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11,
Miu teaches that the prior to pulling over the motor vehicle, accesses a National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, or state-specific Crime Information Center (CIC), and uses information of the alert to access criminal justice information corresponding to the operator information, in order to make a safer decision on where to pull over the motor vehicle to maximize public safety and LEO safety ([0022] teaches that information exchange/transmission may occur while the vehicle has not been stopped, for example, when the vehicle is moving on a highway.)
Regarding claim 12,
Miu teaches that the vehicle identifying information enables the VISOP to determine, based on checking with a remote server prior to pulling over the motor vehicle, whether the motor vehicle is stolen, and communicate that vehicle concern to the LEO via the alert ([0023] teaches that a law enforcement officer may navigate to the user accounts 114e to display the user profile indicating that the vehicle owner has consented to the use of the vehicle by the acquaintance. Thus, in the instance that the vehicle owner has not consented to vehicle use, the information in-effect constitutes informing the officer that the vehicle is stolen).
Regarding claim 13,
Miu teaches transmitting, by the VISOP, the alert to LEOs within an operating area of the motor vehicle to immediately alert the LEO when passing within visual distance to receive the vehicle identifying information and the operator information, enabling the LEO to evaluate a traffic stop and issue a citation, as needed, prior to approaching the motor vehicle ([0022] teaches that the police officer may be cruising on the highway and may be prompted to search for more details from surrounding vehicles, thus reasonably corresponding to “passing within a visual distance” with consideration to the further context of the Miu disclosure).
Regarding claim 14,
Miu teaches that the VISOP transmits the alert showing a mismatch between reported vehicle identifying information as compared to official registration records of the motor vehicle, indicating to the LEO that the motor vehicle is compromised ([0025] teaches a security feature wherein the onboard vehicle system may verify the security features from the digital driver's license to determine whether the digital document is legitimate, wherein a “legitimate copy” is a valid copy that has the requisite security features but without signs of being tampered with.)
Regarding claim 15,
Miu teaches that the VISOP transmits the alert showing a mismatch between reported operator information as compared to official registration records of the operator, indicating to the LEO that the operator information is compromised([0025] teaches a security feature wherein the onboard vehicle system may verify the security features from the digital driver's license to determine whether the digital document is legitimate, wherein a “legitimate copy” is a valid copy that has the requisite security features but without signs of being tampered with.)
Regarding claim 16,
Miu teaches the VISOP uses a fingerprint reader to compare a sensed fingerprint, obtained from the operator, with a stored fingerprint read from a driver's license or obtained via a remote server, to determine the mismatch in operator information([0025] teaches that the user may present a finger-print on the stick or on the steering wheel.)
Regarding claim 19,
Miu teaches issuing the alert to the LEO while one or both of the motor vehicle and an LEO vehicle are still in motion ([0022] teaches that exchange/transmission may occur while the vehicle has not been stopped, for example, when the vehicle is moving on a highway.)
Regarding claim 20,
Miu teaches that the alert issued by the VISOP enables the LEO to transmit an information request to a remote server to determine whether the indication of the operator concerns and the vehicle concerns triggers any infractions, citations, or other actions for LEO enforcement ([0026] teaches an issuing authority server 130).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIU (U.S. Pub. 2017/0187707) in view of TORRES (U.S. Pub. 2023/0116941).
Regarding claim 5,
Miu teaches the method of claim 1 but fails to teach the further recited limitations.
Torres teaches that the VISOP issues the alert with a power level sufficient to establish communication with the LEO when at a visual engagement distance with the LEO (a visual engagement distance is shown in fig. 5; [0070] teaches that the PEACE device application may provide omnipresent awareness and communication between various stakeholders. The awareness may be triggered by physical and virtual cues thus having a power level sufficient to establish communication as recited.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the system of Miu per the teachings of Torres and include configuration whereby alerts are issued with a power level sufficient to communicate at a visual engagement distance because Torres teaches that the officer would benefit from visual cues as they may provide information about occupants of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 7,
Torres teaches that the visual engagement distance corresponds to 500 feet to line-of-sight for officers to witness moving violations (See fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 18,
Miu teaches the method of claim 1 but fails to teach the further recited limitations.
TORRES teaches the VISOP detecting tampering with the motor vehicle, and issuing the alert to the LEO including the indication of the vehicle concern of tampering with the motor vehicle ([0079] teaches that a small silent transmitter hidden within the consumer's vehicle, when activated, begins to send a signal that police can track using a Police Tracking Computers to recover the stolen vehicle).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to further modify the system of Miu per the teachings of Torres, for the purpose of providing an additional layer of security whereby both an owner/consumer and police may be notified when their vehicle has been moved without their permission, thus enabling the owner to report the vehicle theft faster.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONNE PENDLETON whose telephone number is (571)272-7497. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5pm.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/DIONNE PENDLETON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
