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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Applicant argued (REM 1/22/2026, page 9, lines 6+):
“Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's interpretation of the claimed "user equipment (UE)" as corresponding to the MEC device in Takla is inconsistent with both the claim language and the disclosure of Takla. As recited in claim 1, the method is performed "by a user equipment (UE)," and it is the UE that:
1) detects the first condition indicating that the UE itself is associated with a VRU, and
2) initiates transmission of messages indicating VRU characteristics.
Applicant respectfully submits that Takla teaches no entity or component that performs these actions, as recited in the claims.”
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in CTNF (9/24/2025, page 3, last paragraph), Applicant’s UE could be one of several items listed in Applicant’s specification [0026]. [0026] states “FIG. 1 depicts various example UEs 104, which may more generally include: …edge processing devices, …..UEs 104 may also be referred to more generally as a mobile device, a wireless device,..”.
Takla discloses ([0013]; Fig. 1A) “As shown in FIG. 1A, multiple user devices may communicate with a device, such as a multi-access edge computing (MEC) device in a cellular V2X (CV2X) communication system”. Takla also discloses ([0047]): “For example, MEC device 230 may include …. a cellular tower (e.g., a cell phone tower, a mobile phone tower, …) ….Some MEC devices 230 may be mobile base stations.”
Applicant’s VRU in claim 1 corresponds to the User Devices A, B, C in Takla (Fig. 1A).
Hence from the above, it is clear that the UE in Applicant’s invention can correspond to the MEC in Takla, since the MEC can be a mobile, wireless, edge computing device.
The MEC also performs the above limitations 1) and 2) of claim 1, as discussed below.
Regarding 1) detects the first condition indicating that the UE itself is associated with a VRU:
Examiner stated that the 1st condition is location of the User Devices A, B, C (CTNF 9/24/2025, page 4, lines 3+). Takla discloses detecting location of the User Devices A, B, C in [0020], where it is disclosed “In this way, a MEC device or a user device can determine whether a location of the user device is within a roadway, within a threshold proximity of a roadway, within a bicycle lane, within a sidewalk, within an edge of a sidewalk, within a building, and/or the like.”
Hence, Takla discloses detecting location of the User Device, which indicates the UE (MEC) is associated with the VRU (User Device). The association is inherent since if the User Device was not in the vicinity of the MEC, it would not be associated with the MEC but would probably be associated with another closer MEC.
Regarding 2) initiates transmission of messages indicating VRU characteristics.
Takla discloses ([0013], 2nd last sentence) “In this way, the MEC can control transmission of PSMs in the V2X communication system.” In Figs. 1B – 1E, Takla discloses “Determine a relaying action for PSMs, from a set of options, based on locations, speeds, etc. of user devices”.
[0033] discloses “As shown by reference number 122, the MEC device may determine a relaying action to be performed by the MEC device with respect to the PSM based on a vulnerability parameter associated with the user device, such as a location of the user device, a speed of the user device, a velocity of the user device, a direction of movement of the user device, and/or the like. In some implementations, the MEC device may select or determine the relaying action from a set of options for the relaying action …….the MEC device may select an option, from the set of options, based on the vulnerability parameter. For example, the relaying action (e.g., an option) may include relaying the PSM to one or more V2X devices in a vicinity of the MEC device, refraining from relaying the PSM to the one or more V2X devices, transmitting an aggregate PSM that is generated based on multiple PSMs received from multiple user devices, and/or the like. The MEC device may perform the determined relaying action.”
In (for example) Fig. 1B, the User Devices send the PSM messages to the MEC, which then relays/refrains/transmits aggregate PSMs. When relayed, it is inherent that the VRU characteristics will be relayed.
Hence, from the above it is clear that the MEC (UE in Applicant’s invention) initiates transmission of the messages indicating VRU characteristics.
The above arguments are repeated in claim 1 rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 - 7, 9, 12 - 13, 15 - 21, 29 - 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takla (US 20210250748 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takla discloses a method of wireless communications by a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 2 shows wireless network; [0044]; UE is MEC device 230; Fig. 1A shows MEC device as 108. As per Applicant’s specification [0026], UE could be one of several items listed, hence Applicant’s UE could be interpreted as MEC or other devices in the network in Takla, including another vehicle), comprising:
detecting at least a first condition that indicates the UE is associated with a vulnerable road user (VRU):
(Fig. 1A, UE is MEC 108; VRUs are User Devices A, B, C; wherein the 1st condition used for the association is location i.e. User Device A or B or C in the vicinity of MEC 108. Further, Fig. 1A discloses User Devices A, B, C communicating with MEC 108, hence they are associated);
Takla discloses detecting location of the User Devices A, B, C in [0020], where it is disclosed “In this way, a MEC device or a user device can determine whether a location of the user device is within a roadway, within a threshold proximity of a roadway, within a bicycle lane, within a sidewalk, within an edge of a sidewalk, within a building, and/or the like.”
Hence, Takla discloses detecting location of the User Device, which indicates the UE (MEC) is associated with the VRU (User Device). The association is inherent since if the User Device was not in the vicinity of the MEC, it would not be associated with the MEC but would probably be associated with another closer MEC.
and initiating transmission of one or more messages indicating VRU characteristics in response to the detection:
([0014] discloses “PSM A may indicate a location of User Device A, such as using global positioning system (GPS) coordinates, triangulation information, transmit power information, real time kinematics, and/or the like “; wherein the characteristics of the VRU are as indicated above).
Takla discloses ([0013], 2nd last sentence) “In this way, the MEC can control transmission of PSMs in the V2X communication system.” In Figs. 1B – 1E, Takla discloses “Determine a relaying action for PSMs, from a set of options, based on locations, speeds, etc. of user devices”.
[0033] discloses “As shown by reference number 122, the MEC device may determine a relaying action to be performed by the MEC device with respect to the PSM based on a vulnerability parameter associated with the user device, such as a location of the user device, a speed of the user device, a velocity of the user device, a direction of movement of the user device, and/or the like. In some implementations, the MEC device may select or determine the relaying action from a set of options for the relaying action …….the MEC device may select an option, from the set of options, based on the vulnerability parameter. For example, the relaying action (e.g., an option) may include relaying the PSM to one or more V2X devices in a vicinity of the MEC device, refraining from relaying the PSM to the one or more V2X devices, transmitting an aggregate PSM that is generated based on multiple PSMs received from multiple user devices, and/or the like. The MEC device may perform the determined relaying action.”
In (for example) Fig. 1B, the User Devices send the PSM messages to the MEC, which then relays/refrains/transmits aggregate PSMs. When relayed, it is inherent that the VRU characteristics will be relayed.
Hence, from the above it is clear that the MEC (UE in Applicant’s invention) initiates transmission of the messages indicating VRU characteristics.
Regarding claim 2, Takla discloses the one or more messages comprise at least one of: a personal safety message (PSM) or a VRU Awareness Message (VAM) (Fig. 1A,, PSM messages 102, 104, 106 sent from User Devices A, B, C respectively; [0014] – [0016]).
Regarding claim 3, Takla discloses the at least the first condition indicates a type of movement of a user associated with the UE ([0014] discloses “ …location of User Device A, such as using global positioning system (GPS) coordinates, …real time kinematics, ..”; wherein type of movement of a user associated with the UE is “type of movement of a User Device A or B or C associated with the MEC”).
Regarding claim 4, Takla discloses the at least the first condition comprises at least one of: an input from the user indicating the type of movement of the user;
or activation of an application associated with the type of movement of the user ([0014] discloses “ …location of User Device A, such as using global positioning system (GPS) coordinates …”; wherein the application is interpreted as GPS application).
Regarding claim 5, Takla discloses the at least the first condition comprises the UE moving at a speed less than or equal to a running speed for the VRU and along a sidewalk (Fig. 1A, User Device B shown on sidewalk; [0015]; wherein it is inherent that a person walking on the sidewalk would have a speed less than a running speed. As stated in claim 1, UE could be one of several items listed).
Regarding claim 6, Takla discloses the at least the first condition comprises signaling from a wearable device paired with the UE ([0045] discloses “For example, user device 210 may include a communication and/or computing device, such as ….. a wearable communication device …..”; wherein pairing is inherent for the wearable device to communicate with the network).
Regarding claim 7, Takla discloses the at least the first condition comprises signaling from a system that detects, independent of the UE, a type of movement of the VRU associated with the UE ([0019] discloses “In some implementations, the location, the speed, the velocity, and/or the direction of movement may be indicated in a PSM from a user device, {i.e. detected by the user device}….. Alternatively, the PSM may indicate the location of the user device and not the speed, velocity, or direction of movement. In this case, the MEC device may receive multiple PSMs from a user device that indicate corresponding multiple locations, and may determine the speed, velocity, and/or direction of movement of the user device {i.e. detected by the MEC} ”. Hence, multiple network devices can detect the movement information).
Claim 9 is similarly analyzed as claim 7. The external positioning technology could be the MEC that “ …may determine the speed, velocity, and/or direction of movement of the user device..” [0019].
Regarding claim 12, Takla discloses the at least the first condition comprises the UE moving at a cycling speed or with a cycling acceleration ([0024] discloses “For example, if a user device satisfies a speed threshold (e.g., is faster than a threshold, is faster than a first threshold but slower than a second threshold, and/or the like), then the MEC device may classify a VRU of the user device as a cyclist.”).
Regarding claim 13, Takla discloses the at least the first condition comprises the UE being paired with a device associated with cycling ([0045] discloses “For example, user device 210 may include a communication and/or computing device, such as a mobile phone (e.g., a smart phone, a radiotelephone, and/or the like), a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a handheld computer, one a gaming device, a wearable communication device (e.g., a smart wristwatch, a pair of smart eyeglasses, and/or the like), a user device in a vehicle, a user device in a bicycle, or a similar type of device.”).
Regarding claim 15, Takla discloses the at least the first condition comprises one or more other messages transmitted by other UEs of one or more cyclists (Fig. 1A shows roadway and sidewalk with User Devices A and B transmitting message to MEC; A or B could be cyclists; [0020] discloses bicycle lanes).
Regarding claim 16, Takla discloses the one or more other messages comprise at least one of. a personal safety message (PSM) or a VRU Awareness Message (VAM) (Fig. 1A, PSM messages 102, 104, 106).
Regarding claim 17, Takla discloses detecting at least a second condition; and ceasing the transmission of the one or more messages in response to the detection of the at least the second condition ([0034] discloses “Additionally, or alternatively, the MEC device may determine to refrain from relaying (e.g., to suppress, or not transmit) a PSM in the scenarios described above in connection with determining a lower PSM transmission rate, such as when the user device is not located in a roadway, not located within a threshold proximity of a roadway, located farther from a roadway, located in a building, moving slower, stationary, moving away from a roadway, associated with a less dangerous vulnerability parameter, associated with a lower vulnerability score, and/or the like”; wherein the 2nd condition is one of the above).
Regarding claim 18, Takla discloses the at least the second condition comprises a user, associated with the UE, being in a vehicle ([0034] discloses “…such as when the user device is located in a roadway … moving faster …”; [0024] discloses classifying user in a vehicle).
Regarding claim 19, Takla discloses the at least the second condition comprises at least one of:
the UE being paired with the vehicle via Bluetooth; the UE being physically connected with the vehicle; presence of a near-field-communication (NFC) device of the vehicle; or presence of a Wi-Fi hotspot of the vehicle ([0044] discloses “Devices of environment 200 may interconnect via wired connections, wireless connections, or a combination of wired and wireless connections”; wherein physically connected would be a wired connection).
Regarding claim 20, Takla discloses the at least the second condition comprises a user, associated with the UE, driving a vehicle ([0045] discloses “..a user device in a vehicle, …”; wherein driving the vehicle is inherent since the user device is with the user).
Regarding claim 21, Takla discloses the at least the second condition comprises at least one of:
an input from the user indicating the user is driving;
or activation of an application associated with the user driving ([0014] discloses “ …location of User Device A, such as using global positioning system (GPS) coordinates …”; wherein the application is interpreted as GPS application).
Claim 29 is similarly analyzed as claim 1. Memory, processor are disclosed by Takla (Fig. 3, elements 330, 320; [0005]; [0052] discloses “In some implementations, processor 320 includes one or more processors… Memory 330 includes a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), and/or another type of dynamic or static storage device”
Claim 30 is similarly analyzed as claim 1.
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.
Claims 8, 10 - 11, 14, 22 – 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takla (US 20210250748 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Takla discloses the system comprises at least one of:
a traffic camera that detects the VRU;
or a roadside service unit (RSU) ([0062] discloses “For example, determining the relaying action may include determining to relay the PSM to the one or more V2X devices in the vicinity of the MEC device based on a determination that the location is in a roadway or within a threshold proximity of a roadway ..”; wherein the RSU is interpreted as the V2X device in/near a roadway).
Takla does not explicitly disclose the V2X (i.e. RSU) detects the VRU.
However, Takla discloses other network devices detect the VRU (Fig. 1A, MEC 108 detect the User Devices A, B, C , which are the VRUs). Under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F), having the V2X/RSU detect the VRU is obvious to try/obvious variation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have the V2X/RSU detect the VRU as this would be convenient when the VRU is close to the V2X/RSU.
Regarding claim 10, Takla discloses storing information regarding activities of a user ([0085]) and storing HD maps [0020]).
Takla does not disclose comparing stored activities with current activities.
However, Under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E), this is obvious to try since if the user takes the same route each day, then comparing the current path/location with historical path/location would enable one to know and predict possible locations where the user might be highly vulnerable (e.g. crossing an intersection) and hence send the user an advance warning if, for example, the risk at some future path point was high.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to do the above comparison for the above reason.
Claim 11 is similarly analyzed as in claim 10. Storing a route or commute path is obvious to try and beneficial to do for the reasons stated in claim 10.
Regarding claim 14, Takla does not explicitly disclose the at least the first condition comprises a video signal obtained from a camera mounted on a bicycle or a helmet of the user.
However, Takla discloses several possible user devices that can be used ([0045]). Among them is a smartphone, which inherently has a video camera. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art can turn on the video camera and use that to obtain the video signal.
Further, under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E), having a dedicated video camera is obvious to try as [0045] also discloses “or a similar type of device.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to use a video camera as this would provide video of the route taken which could be used for multiple purposes e.g. accident analysis, traffic congestion analysis etc.
Regarding claim 22, Takla does not explicitly disclose the at least the second condition comprises the UE moving at a speed greater than a running speed of a user associated with the UE or with a vehicle acceleration.
However, Takla discloses classifying a VRU as a pedestrian, cyclist, or vehicle ([0024]) based on speed thresholds. Hence under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F), comparing with running speed is an obvious variation of the above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to compare with running speed as this would enable one to know if the device was a cyclist or vehicle, based on the roadway it was on.
Regarding claim 23, Takla does not explicitly disclose the at least the second condition comprises a sound indicating a user, associated with the UE, is in a vehicle.
However, under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E), this is obvious to try since if a user spoke or had the radio on, sound would emanate in the vehicle. A vehicle or a smartphone with a speaker on would detect the sound.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to determine if a user is in the vehicle using sound, as this would allow one to know the condition of the user, e.g. if the user had medical issues etc.
Regarding claim 24, Takla does not explicitly disclose the at least the second condition comprises signaling from a system that detects, independent of the UE, that a user, associated with the UE, is in a vehicle.
However, this is obvious to try since as in claim 23, sound is used to detect if the user is in the vehicle (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E)). Sending a signal then can easily be done using the messaging disclosed in Fig. 1A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to send a message that the user is in the vehicle as this would allow other network devices to determine the state of the user e.g. if the user had a medical issue.
Claim 25 is similarly analyzed as claim 8. Claim 25 recites user, which would correspond to VRU in claim 8.
Claim 26 is similarly analyzed as claims 23, 24. The external positioning technology could be the MEC that “ …may determine the speed, velocity, and/or direction of movement of the user device..” [0019]. The sound picked up could be sent in the message to the MEC that does the analysis to determine if the user is in the vehicle.
Claim 27 is similarly analyzed as claim 10.
Claim 28 is similarly analyzed as claim 11.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to activating/deactivating Personal Safety Messages:
Takla (US 11006264 B1) discloses Method for Controlling Vehicle to Everything Personal Safety Message Transmission, Involves Performing, by the Device and Based on Determining PSM Transmission Rate on Location of User Device.
Lee et al. (US 20180342154 A1) discloses Method, Mobile Device, and System for The Message Transmission of a Vulnerable Road User.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights