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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 10, 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 30-35 are directed to an invention that is independent ordistinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
I. Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, and 17-24 are directed to a system for monitoring, by a second end user, the speed a vehicle driven by a first end user.
II. Claims 30-35 are directed to a system for detecting a kidnapping event in real-time.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presentedinvention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation forprosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 30-35 are withdrawn from considerationas being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP §821.03.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 11/10/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of new discovered prior art reference.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dedes et al US 20120290146 (hereinafter Dedes) in view of Gurusamy Sundaram US 20110106375 (hereinafter Sundaram) and Strickland US 20190098953.
Regarding claim 1, Dedes discloses a system for measuring event parameters to detect anomalies in real-time (see figs. 1), comprising:
an event monitoring unit (IMU sensors with accelerometers, see [0004], [0010]-[0011]) configured to measure one or more event parameters (position and orientation of the host vehicle, see [0004], [0013]) and detect one or more anomalies of one or more events that occur to a first end user (crashes, impending accidents, lane departures, road departures, sliding, and any other types of collisions or accidents, and speed limits, see [0014], [0027]);
the event monitoring unit comprising:
one or more accelerometers configured to detect a change in acceleration of the first end user (acceleration and orientation rate information of the vehicle, see [0020]);
one or more gyroscope sensors configured to measure an orientation and an angular velocity of the first end user (MEMS IMU sensor for determining speed and orientation of the vehicle, see [0021], [0027]);
a GPS module configured to track a live location of the first end user (GPS/IMU device, see [0010], [0013]); and
one or more safe speed trackers that are configured in conjunction with the GPS module to track a velocity of the first end user (fusion processor computes position and speed of the vehicle, and determine if the driver drives the vehicle safely, see [0027]),
wherein the event monitoring unit is further configured to send a notification over a network to a second end user (neighboring vehicles or infrastructure, see [0017]) when one or more anomalies are detected (Vehicle-2-Vehicle communication module and Vehicle-2-Infrastructure-module transmitting safety warning and additional information to neighboring vehicles and infrastructure, see [0012], [0017]).
Dedes does not disclose wherein at least one of the one or more anomalies are detected using one or more safe speed trackers that compare the tracked velocity with a speed limit, and wherein the speed limit is configured to be set by the second end user.
In the same field of endeavor, Sundaram discloses a system for measuring event parameters to detect anomalies in real-time (see figs. 1 and 2), comprising:
one or more safe speed trackers (in-vehicle computer 104 and sensors, see figs. 1 and 2), wherein at least one of the one or more anomalies (D2 driving beyond a certain speed, D1 exceeds a set speed limit, see [0018]-[0019]) are detected using the one or more safe speed trackers that compare the tracked velocity with a speed limit (in-vehicle computer fetches speed limit of a road and compares it to current speed to determine if a speed limit is exceeded, see figs. 1 and 2, [0017]-[0019]), and wherein the speed limit is configured to be set by the second end user (D1 defines settings of vehicle 102…, the speed limit for D2 will be set, see [0018]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Sundaram with Dedes with an equal expectation of success, by detecting of a speed limit violation by a vehicle based on a driver, for the benefit of alerting an owner of the vehicle that the current user is speeding.
The combination of Dedes and Sundaram does not specifically disclose a first end user of the event monitoring unit.
In a similar field of endeavor, Strickland discloses a first end user of an event monitoring unit, the event monitoring unit comprising one or more accelerometers configured to detect a change in acceleration of the first end user, one or more gyroscopes sensors configured to measure an orientation and an angular velocity of the first end user, and a GPS module configured to track a live location of the first end user (motorcycle operator 106, with a helmet 108, the helmet comprising position determination unit 144 comprising accelerometer, gyroscope, and GPS, see figs. 1A and 1C, [0036], [0051]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Strickland with the combination of Dedes as modified by Sundaram with a reasonable expectation of success by installing a accelerometer, gyroscope, and GPS in the helmet of a user, as taught by Strickland, for the benefit of tracking the position and orientation of the helmet in order to properly detect a target vehicle(s) around the helmet user.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1, the combination of Dedes, Sundaram, and Strickland disclose the claimed invention. Strickland further discloses an event monitoring unit integrated in a helmet, headband, or apparel of an end user (see figs. 1A-1C, [0037], [0047], [0051]).
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1, Dedes further discloses a first computing device and a second computing device (host vehicle, neighboring vehicles/infrastructure, see, [0010]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1, Dedes further discloses a central database configured to store the one or more event parameters measured by the event monitoring unit (determining safety from speed limits and trajectory consistency requires a database, see [0027]).
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1, Dedes further discloses wherein the one or more event parameters comprises a current location, velocity, speed limit, distance, an acceleration and a perimeter range, a mode of transport, and a network connectivity (see [0014], [0027]).
Regarding claim 17 as applied to claim 1, Dedes further discloses wherein the event monitoring unit is an inertial measurement unit (see fig. 1, [0010], [0012]).
Regarding claim 18 as applied to claim 1, Dedes further discloses wherein the event monitoring unit further comprises a compass (see fig. 1, claims 1, 2, and 4, [0004]).
Regarding claim 19 as applied to claim 5, Dedes further discloses wherein the first computing device is operated by the first end user, and wherein the second computing device is operated by the second end user (host vehicle, neighboring vehicles/infrastructure, inherently managed by different users, see, [0010]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 20 as applied to claim 19, Dedes further discloses wherein the first and second computing devices comprise an event reporting module configured to receive the event parameters from the event monitoring unit (processor receives data, see [0013]-[0014], [0017]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 21 as applied to claim 20, Dedes further discloses wherein the event reporting module is configured to detect the one or more anomalies based on the received event parameters (see [0014]).
Regarding claim 22 as applied to claim 1, the combination of Dedes and Sundaram discloses the claimed invention. Sundaram further discloses wherein the second end user can set different speed limits for each of a plurality of locations (see [0017]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 23 as applied to claim 1, the combination of Dedes and Sundaram discloses the claimed invention. Sundaram further discloses wherein GPS data is used to determine a set speed limit at a location of the plurality of locations for comparing to the tracked velocity (see [0017]-[0019], [0021], [0037], [0039]).
Regarding claim 24 as applied to claim 1, Dedes further discloses wherein the notification comprises location and/or tracked velocity data from the event monitoring unit (Vehicle-2-Vehicle communication module and Vehicle-2-Infrastructure-module transmitting safety warning and additional information to neighboring vehicles and infrastructure, see [0012], [0017]-[0018]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iqbal et al US 10,373,257 discloses detecting that a mobile device in a vehicle is moving at a speed greater than a predetermined threshold.
Jedlicka et al US 20120028624 discloses a speed control feature that restricts operations based on the speed at which a target handset is travelling.
White et al CA 2641694 A discloses a method and system for controlling a vehicle given to a third party.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUMIDE T AJIBADE AKONAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached on 571-270-5144. 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.
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights