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.
Claim(s) 11, 13-17, 19-21, 23-26, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golestani et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2025/0329252 (hereinafter Golestani) in view of Katardjiev et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0368308 (hereinafter Katardjiev).
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 21, Golestani discloses a system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising: receiving first sensor data from a first sensor being associated with a first location in an environment, the first sensor associated with a third-party that manages operation of a plurality of sensors in the environment and being unassociated with a user equipment or a vehicle in the environment [paragraphs 0007, 0056, 0079]; receiving third sensor data from a third sensor associated with the vehicle [paragraphs 0056, 0092]; inputting the first sensor data and the third sensor data into a model [paragraphs 0020, 0056]; receiving, from the model, output data indicating an incident at the first location impacting the user equipment or the vehicle [paragraph 0056]; determining a distance between the first location and one of: the user equipment or the vehicle [paragraphs 0046, 0056]; generating, based at least in part on the distance, a notification for sending to one of: the user equipment or the vehicle [paragraphs 0046, 0056]; and transmitting the notification over a telecommunications network [paragraphs 0046, 0056].
What Golestani does not specifically disclose is receiving second sensor data from a second sensor associated with user equipment and inputting first, second, and third sensor data into a model. However, Katardjiev teaches these limitations. Katardjiev teaches receiving first sensor data from a first sensor being associated with a first location in an environment, the first sensor associated with a third-party that manages operation of a plurality of sensors in the environment and being unassociated with a user equipment or a vehicle in the environment [fig. 1: ref. 112; paragraph 0031]; receiving second sensor data from a second sensor associated with user equipment [fig. 1: ref. 108; paragraph 0031]; receiving third sensor data from a third sensor associated with the vehicle [fig. 1: ref. 110; paragraph 0032]; inputting the first sensor data, the second sensor data, and the third sensor data into a model [paragraph 0035]. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Golestani to include the teaching of Katardjiev. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 13, 19, and 23, Golestani discloses generating a third notification for sending to a device or a fourth sensor associated with the third-party, the third notification including a suggested action for the device or the fourth sensor relative to the incident; and transmitting the third notification over the telecommunications network [paragraphs 0076-0077].
Regarding claims 14, 20, and 24, Golestani discloses determining supplemental data describing a characteristic of the incident or a suggested action to mitigate an impact of the incident on the user equipment or the vehicle; and including the supplemental data in notification for use by the user equipment or the vehicle [paragraphs 0077].
Regarding claims 15 and 25, Golestani discloses generating a third notification for sending to a device associated with one of: the third-party, the user equipment, or the vehicle [paragraphs 0076, 0086].
Regarding claims 16 and 26, Golestani discloses wherein the incident includes one of: a weather event, a traffic event, a public safety event, or a crowd control event [paragraph 0077].
Regarding claim 28, Golestani discloses wherein the first sensor is associated with a fixed structure that is controlled by the third-party [paragraphs 0007, 0076]. Katardjiev discloses the user equipment is an unmanned aerial vehicle [paragraph 0031].
Regarding claim 29, Golestani discloses wherein the first sensor is a moveable sensor that is configured to be detachably attached to multiple different structures that are controlled by the third-party [paragraph 0079 (multiple roadside nodes spaced apart)]. See also Katardjiev [paragraph 0031].
Regarding claim 30, Golestani discloses wherein the first sensor is a first type of sensor [paragraph 0081] and the second sensor is a second type of sensor that is different than the first type of sensor [paragraph 0109].
Claim(s) 12, 18, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golestani and Katardjiev in view of Chou et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0172625 (hereinafter Chou).
Regarding claims 12, 18, and 22, Golestani discloses determining an incident type for the incident based at least in part on the first sensor data or the second sensor data [paragraph 0077]. What the combination of Golestani and Katardjiev does not specifically disclose is inputting historical data associated with one or more previous incidents of the incident type into the model, wherein the output data from the model is further based at least in part on the historical data. However, Chou teaches these limitations [paragraphs 0015-0016]. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Golestani and Katardjiev to include the teaching of Chou. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golestani and Katardjiev in view of Breed et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0060069 (hereinafter Breed).
Regarding claim 27, Golestani teaches a public safety module including a cellular system to connect drivers to emergency service providers [paragraph 0125]. However, the combination of Golestani and Katardjiev does not specifically disclose generating a second notification for sending to a Public Service Answering Point (PSAP), the second notification including supplemental information about the incident; and transmitting the second notification over the telecommunications network to the PSAP. However, Breed teaches these limitations [paragraph 0212]. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Golestani and Katardjiev to include the teaching of Breed. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11, 17, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIKA WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/EAW/
February 26, 2026
/ERIKA A WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644