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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/04/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The use of the term “BLUETOOTH”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…a GPS signal” should be --…a Global Positioning System (“GPS”)--.
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 2, 3, 13 and 20 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.
Claims 2 and 13 contain the trademark/trade name “Bluetooth”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a short-range radio frequency (RF) that operates within a certain bandwidth (~2.40GHz-2.48GHz) and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims 3 and 20 contain the trademark/trade name “iBeacon”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a short-range radio frequency (RF) that operates within a certain bandwidth (~2.40GHz) and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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) 1, 4, 10-11, 14-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turnock et al (2010/0085213) in view of Kalwani et al (US 2010/0228667).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Turnock et al (2010/0085213) discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a first smart phone (transponder)(item# 30) of an operator of a vehicle, a signal configured to awaken an application (app) of the first smart phone; [¶0017], [¶0021], [¶0065]
responsive to awakening the app of the first smart phone, determining, by the first smart phone, a location of the first smart phone; [¶0008],[¶0058-wherein the transponder is located within the coverage area at the ingress such that transponder can send information in response to the trigger signal]
setting, by the first smart phone, an occupancy level of the vehicle (normal or high occupancy state) based on one or more second smart phones, located in the vehicle, communicating with the first smart phone;(Fig. 5)(item# 400)(item# 44)(item# 402)[¶0073-¶0074]]
providing, via a wireless communication link (signal/RF), the occupancy level to a tolling authority.[¶0050-¶0051]
Turnock fails to disclose, but Kalwani discloses a smart phone [¶0050]. Since a smartphone has hardware such as Near-Field, Bluetooth and GPS technology within it, as taught by Kalwani, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the conventional features of the smart phone, and have substituted the smart phone of Kalwani for the transponder of Turnock having equivalent functions of Turnock’s transponder to transmit a specific signal in response to receiving a designated incoming signal.
Regarding claim 4. Turnock fails, but Kalwani discloses determining the location of the first smart phone comprises receiving, by the first smart phone, a GPS signal. [¶0050]. Because Turnock discusses and utilizes the use of detecting the transponder, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the GPS feature of a smart phone being similar to the transponder, as discussed in Kalwani, to detect the smart phone, being an obvious alternative to the way that Turnock’s transformer is used [see Turnock, ¶0007; ¶0016; ¶0025; ¶0028].
Regarding claim 10, Turnock discloses conducting a financial transaction with the tolling authority based on the occupancy level.[see abstract, ¶0008, esp. ¶0011, ¶0014, ¶0016]
Regarding claim 11, Turnock discloses, further comprising displaying, by the first smart phone, an indication of the occupancy level of the vehicle.[see ¶0011, ¶0014, ¶0016, ¶0040, ¶0067]
Regarding claim 14, Turnock discloses prompting a user of the first smart phone to enter a second occupancy level of the vehicle; [¶0017], [¶0021], [¶0065] and transmitting the second occupancy level to the tolling authority. (Fig. 5)(item# 400)(item# 44)(item# 402)[¶0073-¶0074]]
Regarding claim 18, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause displaying, by the first smart phone, an indication of the occupancy level of the vehicle. [see ¶0011, ¶0014, ¶0016, ¶0040, ¶0067]
Claim(s) 2-3 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turnock et al (2010/0085213) in view of Kalwani et al (US 2010/0228667) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Breed (US 2007/0005609).
Regarding claims 2-3, Turnock in view of Kalwani fails but Breed discloses receiving the signal comprises receiving a Bluetooth beacon (iBeacon also being a type of Bluetooth). [¶0290]
It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date of the invention to employ Bluetooth as taught by Breed. The reason would be to allow devices to receive/transmit data to wireless devices within a shorter range as provided by Bluetooth/iBeacon.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turnock et al (2010/0085213) in view of Kalwani et al (US 2010/0228667) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 104899933A (hereinafter ‘933A)
Regarding claim 5, Turnock et al (2010/0085213) in view of Kalwani et al (US 2010/0228667) fails to disclose, but ‘933A discloses comparing the location of the first smart phone to a table of known toll locations stored on the first smart phone. [See ‘933A, “…the storage module 660 and the navigation module 610 and query module 620 respectively connected storing charging station will pass along the travel and corresponding cost. One implementation in practical application is stored additionally a toll station table A in the module, the table records the toll…”]. Because Turnock specifically discusses use of recording a toll ID, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the invention for the invention of Turnock in view of Kalwani to have recorded toll IDs which may also have included different locations, because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the cost of all tolls are not completely the same and that recording the toll’s identity (including its location) would allow Turnock invention to be used on different toll roads.
Regarding claims 6-7, determining, based on comparing the location of the first smart phone to the table of known toll locations, that the location of the first smart phone is proximate to a first toll location. Turnock in view of Kalwani discloses using the transponder toll ID and the location of the transponder is proximate to the toll. [¶0008],[¶0058-wherein the transponder is located within the coverage area at the ingress such that transponder can send information in response to the trigger signal] but fails to compare the smart phone to the table of known toll locations. This is disclosed by ‘933A [See ‘933A, “…the storage module 660 and the navigation module 610 and query module 620 respectively connected storing charging station will pass along the travel and corresponding cost. One implementation in practical application is stored additionally a toll station table A in the module, the table records the toll…”]. Again, Turnock teaches recording a toll ID. Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the invention of Turnock in view of Kalwani to have recorded toll IDs that include locations, because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the cost of all tolls are not completely the same in each location and that the toll’s identity (including its location) would allow the Turnock invention to be used on different toll roads.
15. Claim(s) 8-9, 12-13, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turnock et al (2010/0085213) in view of Kalwani et al (US 2010/0228667) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cotter et al (US 10,017,106)
16. Regarding claims 8-9, 12-13, 16-17 and 19, Turnock et al (2010/0085213) in view of Kalwani et al (US 2010/0228667) fails to disclose, but Cotter discloses , wherein the first smart phone and the one or more second smart phones are located in the vehicle. (see Cotter, column 2, lines 32-49; Bluetooth-column 7, lines 47-52, column 8, lines 44-60; column 3, lines 49-62; column 6, lines 18-34; column 9, lines 54-67). Turnock and Kalwani discloses wireless systems (i.e., RF, GPS, Bluetooth, etc., as previously discussed above) which are employed to receive and transmit pertinent information related to various aspects of the vehicle’s status including the state of occupancy of the vehicle. It is submitted one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the similarities of cell phones to transponders and as well as their other advantages to receive and transmit data at different electromagnetic frequencies and at various ranges between devices. Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to integrate and employ the use of cell phones, as discussed in Cotter, to receive request data and transmit occupancy data as required in Turnock in view of Kalwani. The reason would be to provide an improved alternative to the transponder of Turnock in view of Kalwani to provide the ability to take advantage of different electromagnetic frequencies found with in cell phones having various ranges between wireless devices, as well as receive request information and transmit occupancy data within the differing electromagnetic ranges. Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing for Turnock in view of Kalwani to have integrated and/or employed the use of cell phone as disclosed in Cotter to determine the status of occupancy of a vehicle, being well understood and widely used in the art as well as an obvious alternative to the transponder taught Turnock in view of Kalwani to provide occupancy status information.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Breed (US 2009/0048750) discloses vehicle-traffic control device communication techniques
Breed (US 2009/0043506) discloses a method and system for controlling timing of vehicle transmissions
Honary et al (W) 2009/007752) discloses occupancy declaration/verification for passenger transport conveyances
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S FELTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6742. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 5712703602. 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.
DANIEL S. FELTEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights