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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communication: Amendment filed Jul. 29, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parundekar et al. (hereinafter Parundekar) U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0322780 in view of Robertson et al. (hereinafter Robertson) U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0293064.
With respect to independent claim 1, Parundekar teaches a method, comprising:
determining, by a first node, that an event has occurred in a geographic area (see e.g., Para [93][94]-“an event may be relevant to a main vehicle 123 if it is located on a route of the main vehicle 123 (as described by the driver data 182) and the main vehicle 123 has not yet passed the location of the event (as estimated based on the location of the main vehicle 123 relative to the location of the event or lead vehicle … determine whether one or more events described by the environment data 180 are relevant to a driver of a main vehicle 123”);
predicting, by the first node, predictive data associated with the event (see e.g., Para [94][95]-“ the driver data 182 indicates that the driver is distracted or likely to be distracted based on the one or more activities of the driver inside the interior of the main vehicle … The driver service module 199 may generate the notification data 194. In some implementations, the notification data 194 may describe (1) an event that is relevant to a particular main vehicle 123 and a particular driver of the main vehicle 123 and (2) the geographic location of the event.”);
updating, by the second node, the predictive data based on additional processing (see e.g., Para [107][213][214] - “may determine that an event is no longer relevant to the main vehicle 123. For example, the route of the main vehicle 123 may have changed so that the event is no longer relevant to the main vehicle 123. Responsive to determining that an event is not relevant to the main vehicle 123, the warning module 306 may not provide a warning set to the driver.”); and
sending by the second node, a notification to the at least one vehicle when it enters the coverage area of the second node based on the updated predictive data (see e.g., Para [96][97]-“ the notification data 194 may be operable to cause the notification system 198 of the main vehicle 123 to provide a set of warnings to the driver of the main vehicle 123 so that the driver may be made aware of the event in sufficient time ”).
Parundekar does not expressly show the features discussed below. However, Robertson teaches predicting, by the first node, that at least one vehicle will enter a coverage area of a second node after it leaves a coverage area of the first node (see e.g., Para [16]-[21][36]-[40]-“determines a region in which mobile station 110 is likely to be located with at least a given probability within a certain period of time” Robertson dose not expressly show that the mobile station can be a vehicle. However, it is well known in the art to have mobile station installed on a vehicle.); sending, by the first node, the predictive data to the second node before the at least one vehicle enters the coverage area of the second node (see e.g., Para [39][40]-“ Pre-caching or routing content for the user of mobile station 110 at one or more of the identified APs (210)”). Both Parundekar and Robertson are directed to mobile data processing. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Parundekar and Robertson in front of them to modify the system of Parundekar to include the above feature. The motivation to combine Parundekar and Robertson comes from Robertson. Robertson discloses the motivation to reduce handoff latency and prepare the next access point in advance. This motivation for combination also applies to the remaining claims which depend on this combination.
With respect to dependent claim 2, the modified Parundekar teaches monitoring by the second node the at least one vehicle after the at least one vehicle enters the coverage area of the second node (see e.g., Robertson Para [4] [18][37]- “This handoff procedure results in a transfer of physical layer connectivity and state information from one AP to another with respect to the mobile station.” “mobile station 110 may transmit signal strength measurements to server 106 as it moves through the building, and server 106 may use these measurements, the fixed locations of APs 102, 103, 104 and 105, and the layout of the building to calculate the vector. “Network handling is continued when the mobile station moves from a first AP to the next).
With respect to dependent claim 3, the modified Parundekar teaches sending by the second node to the first node a confirmation that the at least one vehicle has entered the coverage area of the second node (see e.g., Robertson Para [4] [18][37] – the examiner notes that Robertson does not expressly show sending a confirmation. However, it is well known in the art to send such confirmation to acknowledge a successful handoff).
With respect to dependent claim 4, the modified Parundekar teaches predicting, by the second node, updated predictive data associated with the event based on monitoring of the at least one vehicle (see e.g., Para [93][208]-[214] – “the warning module 306 may determine that an event is no longer relevant to the main vehicle 123. For example, the route of the main vehicle 123 may have changed so that the event is no longer relevant to the main vehicle 123. Responsive to determining that an event is not relevant to the main vehicle 123, the warning module 306 may not provide a warning set to the driver.”).
With respect to dependent claim 5, the modified Parundekar teaches sending, by the second node the updated predictive data to the first node (see e.g., Para [108][209] and Robertson Para [16] – data is sent to a server first and the server can send the data to the first node).
With respect to dependent claim 6, the modified Parundekar teaches sending by the second node, information associated with the at least one vehicle to the first node, wherein the first node updates the predictive data associated with the event based on the information (see e.g., Para [75][93][107][108]).
With respect to dependent claim 7, the modified Parundekar teaches the event is visible to the first node and is not visible to the second node (see e.g., Para [119] [141][142] – “he event may be detectable by one or more sensors of the lead vehicle 124 but not detectable by one or more sensors of the main vehicle 123 (or the driver of the main vehicle 123). For example, the event may be outside of sensor range for the sensor set of the main vehicle 123.”).
Claim 8 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 10 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 3.
Claim 11 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 4.
Claim 12 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 5.
Claim 13 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 6.
Claim 14 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 7.
Claim 15 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 17 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 3.
Claim 18 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 4.
Claim 19 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 5.
Claim 20 is rejected for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 6.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEIYONG WENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1660. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Fri. 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Matthew Ell, can be reached on (571) 270-3264. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PEI YONG WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141
Prosecution Insights