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, and 12/18/2023 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.
Title Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive to the claims as currently presented. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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, 37, 61-62, 64, 66-67, and 73-84 are pending.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 37, 61-62, 64, 66-67, and 73-84 have been withdrawn from consideration but will be rejoined once allowable subject matter is identified and captured in the independent claims.
Claim 1 is independent.
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the “Election of Species” without traverse received on 10/29/2025.
Non-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, and 18 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” and “element” coupled with functional language “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since Claims 1-2, 16, and 18 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claims 1-2, 16, and 18 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claims 1-2, 16, and 18 a first connectivity device configured to: receive first entity data and transmit outgoing data. In the specification, the corresponding structure found was “The one or more connectivity devices 126a,b may include a V2X chipset or modem (e.g., a C-V2X chip), a Wi-Fi modem, a Bluetooth modem (BLE), a cellular modem (e.g., 3G, 4G, 5G, LTE, or the like), Ant+ chipsets, and the like” [Specification, ¶ 0095].
Claims 1-2, 16, and 18 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].
Claim 2 a second connectivity device configured to: receive second entity data and transmit outgoing data. In the specification, the corresponding structure found was “The one or more connectivity devices 126a,b may include a V2X chipset or modem (e.g., a C-V2X chip), a Wi-Fi modem, a Bluetooth modem (BLE), a cellular modem (e.g., 3G, 4G, 5G, LTE, or the like), Ant+ chipsets, and the like” [Specification, ¶ 0095].
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 § 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 1-5, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (device). Therefore, Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 1 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Claim 1 recites: A safety device for a light mobility vehicle, comprising: a housing configured to couple to the light mobility vehicle; a connectivity module positioned within the housing, the connectivity module comprising: a first connectivity device configured to:
receive first entity data from one or more first compatible connectivity devices compatible with the first connectivity device, 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 trajectories,
and transmit outgoing entity data related to the light mobility vehicle to the one or more first compatible connectivity devices; 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 trajectories based on the received first entity data,
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, 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.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “receiving, transmitting, determining and outputting” steps encompass a user to receive information, transmit information, determine, and output an alert”. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer (well understood computing elements) to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “housing configured to couple”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “devices and modules” are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the receiving, transmitting, determining and outputting steps, therefore acting as a generic (well understood) computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the devices and modules are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computing device. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of receiving, transmitting, and outputting are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a controller to perform the process of determining. In particular, the receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As it transmitting and outputting.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a devices or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the apparatus, the devices amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic (well understood) computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of receiving data, transmitting data, outputting, determining, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of receiving the data, transmitting data, determining, and outputting are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional sensors, as are the devices. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-5, 16, and 18 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claim 1.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic devices and controlling a vehicle with the alert. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
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, and 18 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 a light mobility vehicle” [Grimm, ¶ 0011 with Figures 1 and 3];
“comprising: a housing configured to couple to the light mobility vehicle” [Grimm, ¶ 0024];
“a connectivity module positioned within the housing” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figure 3];
“the connectivity module comprising: a first connectivity device configured to: receive first entity data from one or more first compatible connectivity devices compatible with the first connectivity device” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figure 3];
“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 trajectories” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figure 3];
“and transmit outgoing entity data related to the light mobility vehicle to the one or more first compatible connectivity devices” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figure 3];
“and a processing element positioned within the housing and in communication with the connectivity module” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028 with Figure 3 with Figure 1];
“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” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028];
“and the one or more first entity headings based on the received first entity data” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028];
“determine whether any of the one or more first entity headings conflict with a trajectory of the light mobility vehicle based on the received first entity data and the outgoing entity data” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028];
“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];
Grimm does not specifically state trajectories, rather locations, headings, current speeds, and even predicted paths for the user.
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];
“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 “The safety device of claim 1, wherein the connectivity module further comprises a second connectivity device configured to: receive second entity data from one or more second compatible connectivity devices compatible with the second connectivity device” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028];
“wherein the one or more second compatible connectivity devices is associated with one or more second entities” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028];
“and transmit the outgoing entity data related to the light mobility vehicle to the one or more second compatible connectivity devices” [Grimm, ¶ 0023-0028];
“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 “he safety device of claim 1, wherein the first connectivity device is a V2X chipset” [Delhaye, ¶ 0011,0067, and 0069 (at least one of)];
“The safety device of claim 1, wherein the first connectivity device is a
cellular modem” [Delhaye, ¶ 0011,0067, and 0069 (at least one of)];
“The safety device of claim 2, wherein the first connectivity device is a C-V2X modem and the second connectivity device is a cellular modem” [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 processing element is in communication with a second connectivity device” [Delhaye, ¶ 0037 (DOT with road traffic infrastructure)];
“wherein the processing element is configured to receive safety-related data from one or more disparate data sources via the second connectivity device” [Delhaye, ¶ 0037 (DOT with road traffic infrastructure)];
“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, ¶ 0037 (DOT with road traffic infrastructure)].
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.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
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