DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 10/12/2023, 11/29/2023, 12/18/2023, and 6/24/2026 have been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Restriction/Election of Species
Applicant's election without traverse of Species I, (Claims 1-5, 16, and 18) in the reply filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged and is made FINAL.
Status of Application
Claims 1-5, 16, 18, 61-62, 64, 66-67, 78-79, and 81-90 are pending.
Claims 1-5, 18, 61, and 78 have been amended.
Claims 85-90 have been added.
Claims 37, 73-77, and 80 have been cancelled.
Claims 61-62, 64, 66-67, 78-79, and 81-84 have been withdrawn from consideration but will be rejoined once allowable subject matter is identified and captured in the independent claims.
Claims 1 and 85 are the independent claims.
Claims 1-5, 16, 18, and 85-90 will be examined.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” without traverse received on 6/24/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 6/24/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Office Note: Claims 37, 73-77, and 80 have been cancelled, therefore any rejection or objection pertaining thereupon is now considered moot.
With respect to the Title Objection, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Title Objection has been withdrawn.
With respect to the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive for the nonce terms “device” yet since applicant did not amend around the nonce term “element”, this term will remain being interpreted under the 112 (f) section.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached above in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision.
Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has acted as his/her own lexicographer.
Disparate data = one or more disparate or distinct data sources, as discussed in more detail above. For example, the other safety related data may be received from one or more safety devices, one or more system databases ( e.g., trend data collected and stored overtime), one or more third-party databases (e.g., DOT, weather, infrastructure, elevation, crime, etc. databases) or software applications ( e.g., fitness or navigational software applications), user devices, and the like [Specification, ¶ 0264].
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f). Each such limitation will be discussed in turn as follows:
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, (f) paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1-2, 16, 18, and 87-90 states a processing element…configured to determine. In the specification, the corresponding structure found was “The local processing element 402 is any type of electronic device capable of processing, receiving, and/or transmitting instructions. For example, the local processing element 402 may be a central processing unit, microprocessor, processor, or microcontroller” [Specification, ¶ 0280].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 16, 18, and 86-90 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “wherein the one or more first compatible connectivity devices is of the same connectivity device type selected for the first connectivity device” and later “and wherein the one or more second compatible connectivity devices is of the same connectivity device type selected for the second connectivity device” and the metes and bound around the word “type” are unclear thus indefinite. Does this term mean “same version”, “same model”, or even “same name”? Or does this mean just be to able to communicate with, like “type of communication style”? When the Office looks into the specification, it appears as the later and will be interpreted as such. The Office suggests amendment the claims to state “uses the same type of communication”. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 86 states “wherein the one or more second entities are incapable of communicating with the V2X chipset” and the metes and bounds of what this claim is capturing are unclear, thus indefinite. Is there a missing limitation where the capability is determined or affected, or what does incapable cover? Does this merely mean a system that cant or wont communicate, or even have a V2X chipset? As currently presented, the metes and bounds of this claim are unclear thus indefinite. The Office is going to interpret any system that does not mention VX as incapable of communicating with the v2X chipset. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 90: Grimm discloses “wherein the first wireless communication protocol and the second wireless communication protocol are both standardized by 3GPP” yet in Claim 1, in which Claim 90 depends, the first and second wireless protocol are different, thus the metes and bounds of the currently presented claimed subject matter is unclear and indefinite. How can they be different then the same? What is the threshold for the differences or the similarities as there must be some, since both are claimed. As currently presented, Claim 90 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, therefore it indefinite. Furhher, what does standarizationg of 3GPP mean? From applicants own specification, it states “set out by the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) for Long Term Evolution (LTE) and 5G networks” so would using these networks count? Or I there some other metes and bounds to use beside the LTE or 5G? The Office will interpret any use of LTE and 5G as reading on this. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 2-5, 16, 18, and 87-89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-5, 16, 18, and 85-90 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Grimm et al. (United States Patent Publication 2011/0090093) in view of Delhaye et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0227360).
With respect to Claim 1: While Grimm discloses “A safety device for coupling to a light mobility vehicle” [Grimm, ¶ 0011 with Figures 1 and 3];
“comprising: a housing configured to couple to the light mobility vehicle” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“a connectivity module positioned within the housing, the connectivity module comprising: a first connectivity device” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“selected from the group consisting of a V2X chipset, a Wi-Fi modem, a Bluetooth modem, a cellular modem, and an Ant+ chipset” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3],
“wherein the first connectivity device is configured to exchange a first set of entity data, using a first wireless communication protocol, with one or more first compatible connectivity devices compatible with the first connectivity device” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“wherein the one or more first compatible connectivity devices is of the same connectivity device type selected for the first connectivity device” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“and wherein the one or more first compatible connectivity devices is associated with one or more first entities that are traveling and have one or more first entity information” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“and wherein exchanging the first set of entity data comprises: receiving first entity data from the one or more first compatible connectivity devices” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“and transmitting outgoing entity data related to the light mobility vehicle to the one or more first compatible connectivity devices” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“and a second connectivity device” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“wherein the second connectivity device is configured to exchange a second set of entity data” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“using a second wireless communication protocol, with one or more second compatible connectivity devices compatible with the second connectivity device, wherein the second wireless communication protocol is different from the first wireless communication protocol” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“and wherein the one or more second compatible connectivity devices is of the same connectivity device type selected for the second connectivity device” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“and wherein the one or more second compatible connectivity devices is associated with one or more second entities that are traveling and have one or more second entity trajectories” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“and wherein exchanging the second set of entity data comprises: receiving second entity data from the one or more second compatible connectivity devices” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“and transmitting the outgoing entity data related to the light mobility vehicle to the one or more second compatible connectivity devices” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“and a processing element positioned within the housing and in communication with the connectivity module, the processing element configured to: determine one or more locations of the one or more first compatible connectivity devices relative to the light mobility vehicle and the one or more first entity information’s based on the received first entity data” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“determine whether any of the one or more first entity information conflicts with a location of the light mobility vehicle based on the received first entity data and the outgoing entity data” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“and if a first entity trajectory conflict is determined, then transmit a first alert detectable by a user of the light mobility vehicle that is indicative of the first entity trajectory conflict” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
Grimm does not state the same list of possible connection devices, rather short range wireless systems that use Bluetooth, Zigbee, and NFC. Further Grimm does not specifically state trajectories, rather locations, headings, current speeds, and even predicted paths for the user where “the vehicle is approaching from the rear, then a haptic sensation is generated on the back side of the belt such that the pedestrian feels the sensation on their back. Similarly, if the vehicle is approaching from the right, then the haptic belt generates a sensation on the right side of the person's body as illustrated in FIG. 3. Similarly, the information relating to the position and heading of the pedestrian is provided to the vehicle where the location and heading can be communicated by way of visual, auditory, or haptic communication” [Grimm, ¶ 0027], thus trajectories are loosely understood.
Delhaye, which is in the same field of invention of Grimm of communicating data between mobile objects for creating a safer environment teaches “the processing element configured to: determine one or more locations of the one or more first compatible connectivity devices relative to the light mobility vehicle” [Delhaye, ¶ 0005, 0115, and 0142];
“selected from the group consisting of a V2X chipset, a Wi-Fi modem, a Bluetooth modem, a cellular modem, and an Ant+ chipset” [Delhaye, ¶ 0011, 0033, and 0107];
“and the one or more first entity trajectories based on the received first entity data” [Delhaye, ¶ 0005, 0115, and 0142];
“determine whether any of the one or more first entity trajectories conflict with a trajectory of the light mobility vehicle based on the received first entity data and the outgoing entity data” [Delhaye, ¶ 0005, 0115, and 0142];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Delhaye into the invention of Grimm to not only include gathering data such as location, headings and predicating further paths for collision avoidance as Grimm discloses but to also compare predicted trajectories of objects for collision avoidance as taught by Delhaye with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Delhaye into Grimm to create a more robust system that increase safety by helping identify users not following rules by predicating paths [Delhaye, ¶ 0004]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements communicating data between objects for avoidance control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 2: While Grimm discloses “wherein the processing element is further configured to: determine one or more locations of the one or more second compatible connectivity devices relative to the light mobility vehicle and one or more second entity trajectories based on the received second entity data” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028];
“determine whether any of the one or more second entity headings conflict with a trajectory of the light mobility vehicle based on the received second entity data and the outgoing entity data” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028];
“and if a second entity trajectory conflict is determined, then transmit a second alert detectable by the user that is indicative of the second entity trajectory conflict” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028];
Grimm does not specifically state that the second device is different than the first device, or that the trajectories, rather locations, headings, current speeds, and even predicted paths. Grimm does states that Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, ZigBee, and NFC protocols could be used with the V2P and V2X systems, thus vehicles using both, either, or any would read on a second device.
Delhaye, which is in the same field of invention of Grimm of communicating data between mobile objects for creating a safer environment teaches “the processing element configured to: determine one or more locations of the one or more second compatible connectivity devices relative to the light mobility vehicle” [Delhaye, ¶ 0005, 0115, and 0142];
“and the one or more second entity trajectories based on the received second entity data” [Delhaye, ¶ 0005, 0115, and 0142];
“determine whether any of the one or more second entity trajectories conflict with a trajectory of the light mobility vehicle based on the received second entity data and the outgoing entity data” [Delhaye, ¶ 0005, 0115, and 0142].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Delhaye into the invention of Grimm to not only include gathering data such as location, headings and predicating further paths for collision avoidance as Grimm discloses but to also compare predicted trajectories of objects for collision avoidance as taught by Delhaye with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Delhaye into Grimm to create a more robust system that increase safety by helping identify users not following rules by predicating paths [Delhaye, ¶ 0004]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements communicating data between objects for avoidance control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claims 3-5: While Grimm discloses that the connectivity device can be used with DSRC using V2P and V2X such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, ZigBee, and NFC protocols [Grimm, ¶ 0011-0012];
Grimm does not state which one is used or go into detail about the protocols.
Delhaye, which is in the same field of invention of Grimm of communicating data between mobile objects for creating a safer environment teaches “wherein the first connectivity device and the one or more first compatible connectivity devices are both V2X chipsets” [Delhaye, ¶ 0011,0067, and 0069 (at least one of)];
“wherein the first connectivity device and the one or more first compatible connectivity devices are both cellular modems” [Delhaye, ¶ 0011,0067, and 0069 (at least one of)];
“wherein the second connectivity device and the one or more second
compatible connectivity devices are both cellular modems” [Delhaye, ¶ 0011,0067, and 0069 (at least one of)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Delhaye into the invention of Grimm to not only include gathering data such as location, headings and predicating further paths for collision avoidance as Grimm discloses but to also use many known types of communication DSRC protocols, such as cellular and V2X as taught by Delhaye with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Delhaye into Grimm to create a more robust system that increase safety by helping identify users not following rules by predicating paths [Delhaye, ¶ 0004]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements communicating data between objects for avoidance control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 16: Grimm discloses “The safety device of claim 1, wherein the first alert is indicative of a direction of the first entity trajectory conflict” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028].
With respect to Claim 18: While Grimm discloses “the wireless message transmitted by the vehicle may include data about environmental awareness conditions relating to vehicle positions, vehicle kinematics/dynamic parameters (which may signify crash threat potential), traffic or road events sensed by respective remote vehicles” [Grimm, ¶ 0013];
Grimm does not specifically state out of range disparate messages being received.
Delhaye, which is in the same field of invention of Grimm of communicating data between mobile objects for creating a safer environment teaches “wherein the second connectivity device is configured for long-range communication,” [Delhaye, ¶ 0011, 0017, and 0037];
“wherein the processing element is configured to receive safety-related data from one or more disparate data sources via the second connectivity device” [Delhaye, ¶ 0011, 0017, and 0037];
“and wherein at least one disparate data source of the one or more disparate data sources is outside a communication range of the first connectivity device” [Delhaye, ¶ 0011, 0017, and 0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Delhaye into the invention of Grimm to not only include gathering data for collision avoidance as Grimm discloses but to also gather data from servers out of range of the vehicle as taught by Delhaye with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Delhaye into Grimm to create a more robust system that increase safety by helping identify users not following rules by predicating paths [Delhaye, ¶ 0004]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements communicating data between objects for avoidance control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 85: While Grimm discloses “A safety device for a light mobility vehicle” [Grimm, ¶ 0011 with Figures 1 and 3];
“comprising: a housing configured to couple to the light mobility vehicle” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“a connectivity module positioned within the housing” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“the connectivity module comprising: a chipset configured to: receive first entity data from one or more external chipsets operating on the same protocol as the chipset” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“wherein the one or more external chipsets are associated with one or more first entities that are traveling and have one or more first entity information” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“and transmit outgoing entity data related to the light mobility vehicle to the one or more external chipsets” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“and a modem configured to: receive second entity data, via a remote processor, from one or more external modems compatible with the modem” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“wherein the one or more external modems are associated with one or more second entities that are traveling and have one or more second entity information” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“wherein the one or more second entities are different from the one or more first entities” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“and transmit the outgoing entity data related to the light mobility vehicle to the one or more external modems” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“and a processing element positioned within the housing and in communication with the connectivity module” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“the processing element configured to: determine one or more locations of the one or more first entities relative to the light mobility vehicle and the one or more first entity information based on the received first entity data” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“determine one or more locations of the one or more second entities relative to the light mobility vehicle and the one or more second entity information based on the received second entity data” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“and determine whether any of the one or more first entity information or any of the one or more second entity conflict with a information of the light mobility vehicle based on the received first entity data, the received second entity data, and the outgoing entity data” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“if a first entity information conflict is determined, then transmit a first alert detectable by a user of the light mobility vehicle that is indicative of the first entity conflict” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
“and if a second entity conflict is determined, then transmit a second alert detectable by the user that is indicative of the second entity conflict” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
Grimm does not state the same list of possible connection devices, rather short range wireless systems that use Bluetooth, Zigbee, and NFC. Further Grimm does not specifically state trajectories, rather locations, headings, current speeds, and even predicted paths for the user where “the vehicle is approaching from the rear, then a haptic sensation is generated on the back side of the belt such that the pedestrian feels the sensation on their back. Similarly, if the vehicle is approaching from the right, then the haptic belt generates a sensation on the right side of the person's body as illustrated in FIG. 3. Similarly, the information relating to the position and heading of the pedestrian is provided to the vehicle where the location and heading can be communicated by way of visual, auditory, or haptic communication” [Grimm, ¶ 0027], thus trajectories are loosely understood.
Delhaye, which is in the same field of invention of Grimm of communicating data between mobile objects for creating a safer environment teaches “the processing element configured to: determine one or more locations of the one or more first compatible connectivity devices relative to the light mobility vehicle” [Delhaye, ¶ 0005, 0115, and 0142];
“selected from the group consisting of a V2X chipset, a Wi-Fi modem, a Bluetooth modem, a cellular modem, and an Ant+ chipset” [Delhaye, ¶ 0011, 0033, and 0107];
“and the one or more first entity trajectories based on the received first entity data” [Delhaye, ¶ 0005, 0115, and 0142];
“determine whether any of the one or more first entity trajectories conflict with a trajectory of the light mobility vehicle based on the received first entity data and the outgoing entity data” [Delhaye, ¶ 0005, 0115, and 0142];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Delhaye into the invention of Grimm to not only include gathering data such as location, headings and predicating further paths for collision avoidance as Grimm discloses but to also compare predicted trajectories of objects for collision avoidance as taught by Delhaye with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Delhaye into Grimm to create a more robust system that increase safety by helping identify users not following rules by predicating paths [Delhaye, ¶ 0004]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements communicating data between objects for avoidance control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 86: Grimm discloses “The safety device of claim 85, wherein the one or more second entities are incapable of communicating with the V2X chipset” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3].
With respect to Claim 87: Grimm discloses “The safety device of claim 1, wherein the second entity data comprises location, speed, heading of the one or more second entities” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3].
With respect to Claim 88: While Grimm discloses “the wireless message transmitted by the vehicle may include data about environmental awareness conditions relating to vehicle positions, vehicle kinematics/dynamic parameters (which may signify crash threat potential), traffic or road events sensed by respective remote vehicles” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3];
Grimm does not specifically state long range disparate messages being received.
Delhaye, which is in the same field of invention of Grimm of communicating data between mobile objects for creating a safer environment teaches “wherein the one or more disparate data sources comprise one or more third-party databases storing data related to one or more of weather, road conditions, environment, and traffic” [Delhaye, ¶ 0037 and 0107].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Delhaye into the invention of Grimm to not only include gathering data for collision avoidance as Grimm discloses but to also gather data from servers out of range of the vehicle as taught by Delhaye with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Delhaye into Grimm to create a more robust system that increase safety by helping identify users not following rules by predicating paths [Delhaye, ¶ 0004] and gathering traffic data. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements communicating data between objects for avoidance control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 89: Grimm discloses “The safety device of claim 1, wherein the processing element is further configured to determine one or more safe actions, wherein the one or more safe actions relate to the traveler's movement relative to a location of the first entity trajectory conflict, and wherein the first alert is related to the one or more safe actions” Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3].
With respect to Claim 90: While Grimm discloses “The safety device of claim 1, wherein the first wireless communication protocol and the second wireless communication protocol are both standardized” Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figures 1 and 3].
Grimm does not specifically state long range disparate messages being received.
Delhaye, which is in the same field of invention of Grimm of communicating data between mobile objects for creating a safer environment teaches “wireless communication protocols are both standardized by 3GPP” [Delhaye, ¶ 0005, 0020, 0037, 0083, 0093, and 0107].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Delhaye into the invention of Grimm to not only include gathering data for collision avoidance as Grimm discloses but to also gather data from servers out of range of the vehicle as taught by Delhaye with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Delhaye into Grimm to create a more robust system that increase safety by helping identify users not following rules by predicating paths [Delhaye, ¶ 0004] and gathering traffic data. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements communicating data between objects for avoidance control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am -4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights