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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on January 7, 2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 6, 11, 14 and 18 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 6-8, filed January 7, 2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
In response to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, the examiner has not been persuaded to reconsider the grounds of rejection due to the improvement not being fully captured in the claim
language in such a way that would suggest a significant improvement to the emergency response system presented. Applicant was mute in the remarks on January 7, 2026 regarding the U.S.C. §101 rejection, so the examiner is not persuaded to review any additional arguments or remarks until the rejection is addressed. The invention merely collects traffic data (data gathering) from images and extrapolates navigation information for further analysis without implementing the data analysis into a practical application. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC §102, applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to
show certain features of the invention, the previously applied prior art does disclose the amended features. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., at least one sensor of a sensor array, the at least one sensor affixed to an access node within a radio access network (RAN), the access node communicating over the RAN with multiple wireless devices and the sensor-sensing a trigger event and transmitting a notification of the trigger event using the RAN, wherein the sensor array is dispersed throughout a coverage area of the access node) are clearly defined in the prior art of record and a clarified rejection has been made as presented below. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Independent claim 11 is directed toward a system, claim 1 is directed toward a method, and claim 18 is directed toward a non-transitory CRM. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1,11, and 18 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claims 1, 11, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 11 is used for illustration:
A system comprising:
at least one sensor of a sensor array, the at least one sensor affixed to an access node within a radio access network (RAN),
the access node communicating over the RAN with multiple wireless devices and the sensor-sensing a trigger event and transmitting a notification of the trigger event using the RAN, wherein the sensor array is dispersed throughout a coverage area of the access node; and
a processing node communicating over the RAN with the access node, the processing node including a memory, a processor, and a transceiver, the transceiver receiving the notification of the trigger event over the RAN from the access node sensor and the processor accessing the memory and executing stored instructions to perform operations including;
determining an impacted area based on the notification from the access node;
formulating at least one navigational path for at least one of the multiple wireless devices based on the impacted area; and
transmitting the at least one navigational path to a navigation system of at least one of the multiple wireless devices.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Mental process (concept performed in the human mind) but for the recitation of generic computer elements. For example, a person could watch a video of the observed area, detect an incident, and transmit a notification of the event and direct how to navigate a vehicle to or avoid the event.
As explained above, independent claim 11 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims 1 and 18, which are of similar scope to claim 11, likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2
With respect to Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not practically integrated. The claim recites the additional elements of “a sensor and a processing node”. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements are all generic computer elements have been held to be not significantly more than the abstract idea by Alice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the processors to receive information, make decisions, and supply instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitation step of “transmitting a notification of a trigger event ” or “ transmitting the at least one navigational path to a navigation system”, are not more than the judicial exception, because as detailed in Electric Power Group, additional elements that are used to simply output results do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1 and 18 cite the same limitations as that in claim 11, with the exception of adding more generic computer components, and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are dependent on the previous claims mentioned and recite limitations that include further abstract ideas of which can also be performed in the human mind or outputting data and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant is encouraged to send an interview request to discuss ways in which the current rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 may be overcome.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan et al., US2017/0276495A1 (Hereinafter, “Krishnan”) in view of Guan et al., US 2021/0110683 A1 (Hereinafter “Guan”).
Regarding Claims 1, 11 and 18 Krishnan recites a method/system/non-transitory CRM comprising: receiving, at an emergency navigational pathing system affixed to an access node and communicating over a radio access network (RAN) with multiple wireless devices (208 “PSAP”), See at least Fig. 2 ,[0026-0028], and [0047].
a notification of a trigger event (204) from at least one sensor See at least Fig.2 and [0017-0018], “PSAP or other system can receive an emergency event. “routes that they would like to “reserve” for dealing with emergencies. These routes include routes to incident sites (e.g., an accident location), routes to hospitals, or other events (e.g., high speed chases).” And [0047], “exterior sensors 340 may be configured to collect data relating to one or more conditions, objects, users, and other events that are external to the interior space of the vehicle 116. For instance, the oxygen/air sensors 340 may measure a quality and/or composition of the air outside of a vehicle 116. As another example, the motion sensors 340 may detect motion outside of a vehicle 116.”
formulating at least one navigational path utilizing a processor of the emergency navigational pathing system (212), the at least one navigational path based on the determination of the impacted area, based on the determination of the impacted area, (124); See at least Fig.2, [0022], and [0028-0029].
transmitting the at least one navigational path over the RAN from the access node (212) to a navigation system of at least one of the multiple wireless devices (116 and 120). See at least [0028-0029].
Krishnan discloses an emergency navigation system, but does not disclose using sensors dispersed throughout the coverage area to determine the impacted area and does not disclose a sensor affixed to the access node. However, Guan teaches emergency route planning including dispersed sensor arrays in [0035] and a sensor affixed to the access node in [0044-0047], in addition to the following:
wherein the at least one sensor affixed to the access node (340) ; based on the notification of the trigger event from the sensor affixed to the access node, determining an impacted area; See at least Fig.1 and [0006], “The one or more processors are further configured to: determine an emergency area … based on the first location data; obtain second location data of each subject of the one or more subjects and real-time sensor data of the infrastructure, where the real-time sensor data indicates at least one of a first location data of the emergency area … determine a presence of the one or more subjects is in the emergency area, based on the second location data of each subject of the one or more subjects and the first location data.”
As both are in the same field of worksite communications, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Krishnan’s emergency system with the sensor limitations disclosed in Guan with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine congestion areas and provide bypass routing in Guan [0045].
Regarding Claims 2, 12 and 19, Krishnan recites the following limitation dependent on claim 1:
further comprising determining the impacted area using cellular triangulation. See [0027], “Some or all the information associated with the event 204, with other metadata that may be deduced or determined by the PSAP 208, … The metadata can include the current location of the emergency vehicle 120 and the destination required 124, a current time or date, traffic patterns or current levels of congestion, etc.”. Also, in [0054], “Additionally or alternatively, the location module 596 may use known locations of Wi-Fi hotspots, cell tower data, etc. to determine the position of the vehicle 116”.
Regarding Claim 3, Krishnan recites the following limitation dependent on claim 1:
further comprising: notifying, from the access node, other access nodes over the RAN in the impacted area of the trigger event. See at least [0026], “A public safety answering point (PSAP) 208 may be a computer and communication system that can receive emergency events 204 and provide or select routes 212 for the emergency vehicles 120. The PSAP 208 can include a call center and any necessary server or computer system, such as those described in conjunction with FIGS. 11 and 12, that can receive an emergency 204 through a phone call or other type of communication. The emergency event 204 can be any type of event that requires an emergency vehicle 120 to respond to a destination or location 124. For example, assume a major accident on an interstate highway. Today, a backup of traffic will allow the mapping service to try to re-route users on another path. “
Regarding Claim 4, Krishnan recites the following limitation dependent on claim 1:
wherein the trigger event is one of a road blockage, shooting, a storm warning, a flooded road, a fire, a traffic accident, a plane crash. In [0026], “The emergency event 204 can be any type of event that requires an emergency vehicle 120 to respond to a destination or location 124. For example, the event 204 may include a request for the fire department, a request for police assistance, a request for ambulance, a request, from an emergency vehicle 120 to clear a route to a hospital or other emergency facility 124, etc.”
Regarding Claims 5, 13 and 20, Krishnan recites the following limitation dependent on claim 1:
further comprising formulating, the at least one navigational path for an autonomous vehicle, the navigational path formulated to avoid the impacted area.
See at least [00108], “Optionally, the automobile controller 504 can receive the reroute information from the traffic controller 512 and automatically control the vehicle 116 to a different route, in step 1024. Thus, the automobile controller 504 can control one or more of the mechanical systems of the vehicle 116 to move the car automatically away from the emergency vehicle 120. If no automatic control is completed by the automobile controller 504, the user may be prompted to follow the different route and may be provided information that an emergency vehicle 120 will be using the route currently being used by the vehicle 116. In that way, the user of the vehicle 116 may be motivated to follow the reroute rather than continue on the same route and avoid the problems with intersecting or traveling within physical proximity of the emergency vehicle 120.”
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Krishnan recites the following limitation dependent on claim 4: further comprising receiving additional triqqer notifications from sensors of the sensor array communicating within the RAN, but not affixed to the access node. See at least [0056], “An automobile controller 504 can be any hardware and/or software that can receive instructions from the location module 596 or the traffic controller 512 and operate the vehicle 116. The automobile controller 504 receives this information and data from the sensors 340 to operate the vehicle 116 without driver input … Discrete and real-time driving can occur with data from the sensors 340.” Also [0061], “The traffic controller 512 can also manage vehicle-to-vehicle communications and store information about the communications or other information in the traffic information database 524.” And [0124], “Furthermore, it should be appreciated that the various links connecting the elements can be wired or wireless links … can also be secure links and may be capable of communicating encrypted information. Transmission media used as links, for example, can be any suitable carrier for electrical signals … such as those generated during radio-wave and infra-red data communications.”
Krishnan discloses an emergency navigation system, but does not disclose using sensors dispersed throughout the coverage area to determine the impacted area. However, Guan teaches emergency route planning including dispersed sensor arrays communicating over RF in [0044-0045].
As both are in the same field of worksite communications, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Krishnan’s emergency system with the sensor array limitations disclosed in Guan with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine congestion areas and provide bypass routing in Guan [0045].
Regarding Claims 7 and 15, Krishnan recites the following limitation dependent on claim 1:
further comprising formulating, the at least one navigational path(132) for an emergency vehicle (120), wherein the at least one navigational path directs the emergency vehicle to the impacted area. See [0022],” In response to the emergency, the emergency vehicle 120 may be trying to travel from an origination point 128 to a destination point 124. The destination point 124 may be an accident, a hospital, a scene of an event needing police response, or some other place where emergency assistance is required. To get from the origination 128 to destination 124, the emergency vehicle 120 may follow one of many possible routes 132a, 132b.”
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, Krishnan recites the following limitation dependent on claim 1:
further comprising receiving, at the emergency navigational pathing system, a series of notifications, each notification of the series providing further information pertaining to the trigger event. See [103], ”In step 928, the map server 220 may determine if the emergency is finished …. The map server 220 may receive indication of the termination of the emergency from the PSAP 208”.
Regarding Claim 9 and 17, Krishnan recites the following limitation dependent on claim 8:
further comprising, revising the determination of the impacted area and the at least one navigational path based on each received notification in the series of notifications. See Fig.10.
Regarding Claim 10, Krishnan recites the following limitation dependent on claim 1:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor (340) is at least one of an acoustic sensor, a camera, a heat sensor, a smoke sensor, or a leak sensor. See Guan [0045-0047] for various sensors used to assist in the functionality of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669