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 application filed on 07/01/2024. Claims 5, 7-8, 15, 17-27, 31, and 33 are canceled. Claims 1-4, 6, 9-14, 16, 28-30, 32, and 34-37 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 30, and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 16 and 30 recite "a GNNS sensor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests replacing the phrase “a GNNS sensor” with the phrase "a GNSS sensor" or any appropriate correction.
Claim 37 recites “wherein the local processing element is configured to assess a threat based the entity data”. Examiner suggests reciting “wherein the local processing element is configured to assess a threat based on the entity data” or any appropriate correction.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORM S.—Subject to subsection a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S. C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 16 depends on a canceled claim. For purposes of the prior art of this Action, Examiner is interpreting claim 16 to depend on claim 9.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to ATA 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.
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 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 16, 28, 32, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 20210402883 (hereinafter, "Bender") in view of NPL Document "Spatial Interference Mitigation Nulling the Embedded Element Pattern" (hereinafter, "Irazoqui").
Regarding claim 1, Bender discloses a safety device for a light mobility vehicle, comprising:
a circuit board positioned within or coupled to a light mobility vehicle part (Fig. 4, #400);
one or more connectivity modules coupled to the circuit board (Fig. 1, #120), wherein the one or more connectivity modules exchange entity data with one or more other entities (Fig. 2, #250); and
However, Bender does not explicitly teach
a specialized antenna coupled to the circuit board, wherein the specialized antenna is configured to mitigate interference of one or more components of the light mobility vehicle part with the one or more connectivity modules.
Irazoqui, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
a specialized antenna coupled to the circuit board, wherein the specialized antenna is configured to mitigate interference of one or more components of the light mobility vehicle part with the one or more connectivity modules ((Fig. 5) and “This paper introduces an RF circuit placed at the antenna feeding network creating a steerable null in the embedded element pattern. By creating a null in the embedded element pattern in the direction of the interferer, the unwanted signal gets cancelled out before it reaches the first element of the receiver chain” (page 620, Col. 1, para 7)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Bender with the teachings of Irazoqui in order to provide array-level interference rejection; see Irazoqui at least at [Fig. 5].
Regarding claim 4, Bender discloses the safety device of claim 1. However, Bender does not explicitly teach wherein the light mobility vehicle part is a battery and the specialized antenna mitigates interference from one or more battery components, improving signal strength of the one or more connectivity modules.
Irazoqui, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the light mobility vehicle part is a battery and the specialized antenna mitigates interference from one or more battery components, improving signal strength of the one or more connectivity modules ((Fig. 5) and “This paper introduces an RF circuit placed at the antenna feeding network creating a steerable null in the embedded element pattern. By creating a null in the embedded element pattern in the direction of the interferer, the unwanted signal gets cancelled out before it reaches the first element of the receiver chain” (page 620, Col. 1, para 7)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Bender with the teachings of Irazoqui in order to provide array-level interference rejection; see Irazoqui at least at [Fig. 5].
Regarding claim 6, Bender discloses the safety device of claim 1. However, Bender does not explicitly teach further comprising one or more sensors coupled to the circuit board, wherein the specialized antenna improves signal strength of the one or more sensors.
Irazoqui, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
further comprising one or more sensors coupled to the circuit board, wherein the specialized antenna improves signal strength of the one or more sensors ((Fig. 5) and “This paper introduces an RF circuit placed at the antenna feeding network creating a steerable null in the embedded element pattern. By creating a null in the embedded element pattern in the direction of the interferer, the unwanted signal gets cancelled out before it reaches the first element of the receiver chain” (page 620, Col. 1, para 7)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Bender with the teachings of Irazoqui in order to provide array-level interference rejection; see Irazoqui at least at [Fig. 5].
Regarding claim 9, Bender discloses a safety device for a light mobility vehicle, comprising:
a printed circuit board positioned inside a battery housing cavity defined by a battery housing of a battery coupled to the light mobility vehicle (“In some embodiments, various elements or portions of elements of system 100 may be integrated with each other, for example, or may be integrated onto a single printed circuit board (PCB)” (para 0056)), wherein the battery comprises one or more battery cells positioned inside the battery housing cavity (Fig. 1, #124);
a first connectivity module coupled to the printed circuit board and to the one or more battery cells (Fig. 1, #120), wherein the first connectivity module is configured to communicate with a compatible other connectivity module that is separate from the light mobility vehicle (Fig. 1, #134) and wherein the first connectivity module receives power from the one or more battery cells (Fig. 1, #110); and
one or more specialized antennas coupled to the printed circuit board or to the battery housing and in communication with the first connectivity module (Fig. 1, #120),
However, Bender does not explicitly teach
wherein the one or more specialized antennas mitigate interference of one or more battery components with the communication between the first connectivity module and the compatible other connectivity module.
Irazoqui, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the one or more specialized antennas mitigate interference of one or more battery components with the communication between the first connectivity module and the compatible other connectivity module ((Fig. 5) and “This paper introduces an RF circuit placed at the antenna feeding network creating a steerable null in the embedded element pattern. By creating a null in the embedded element pattern in the direction of the interferer, the unwanted signal gets cancelled out before it reaches the first element of the receiver chain” (page 620, Col. 1, para 7)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Bender with the teachings of Irazoqui in order to provide array-level interference rejection; see Irazoqui at least at [Fig. 5].
Regarding claim 16, Bender discloses the safety device of claim 15. Additionally Bender discloses wherein the first connectivity module is in communication with a GNNS sensor that is positioned inside the battery housing and proximate a top wall of the battery housing (“GNSS receiver 118 may be implemented according to any global navigation satellite system, including a GPS, GLONASS, and/or Galileo based receiver and/or other device capable of determining absolute and/or relative position of transit vehicle 110” (para 0040)).
Regarding claim 28, Bender discloses a method of manufacturing a safety device for a light mobility vehicle, comprising:
coupling one or more connectivity modules to a circuit board ((Fig. 1, #124) and “In some embodiments, various elements or portions of elements of system 100 may be integrated with each other, for example, or may be integrated onto a single printed circuit board (PCB)” (para 0056)), wherein the one or more connectivity modules are configured to transmit entity data to a nearby entity having a compatible connectivity module (Fig. 2, #250);
coupling one or more sensors to the one or more connectivity modules (Fig. 1, #110);
positioning the circuit board inside a housing, wherein the housing is a light mobility vehicle battery housing of a light mobility vehicle battery or a safety device housing configured to couple to a component of a light mobility vehicle (Fig. 3A, #110b); and
coupling an antenna to an external surface of the housing (Fig. 1, #120),
However, Bender does not explicitly teach
wherein the antenna is coupled to the one or more sensors and is configured to reduce signal interference from the light mobility vehicle battery or the component.
Irazoqui, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the antenna is coupled to the one or more sensors and is configured to reduce signal interference from the light mobility vehicle battery or the component ((Fig. 5) and “This paper introduces an RF circuit placed at the antenna feeding network creating a steerable null in the embedded element pattern. By creating a null in the embedded element pattern in the direction of the interferer, the unwanted signal gets cancelled out before it reaches the first element of the receiver chain” (page 620, Col. 1, para 7)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Bender with the teachings of Irazoqui in order to provide array-level interference rejection; see Irazoqui at least at [Fig. 5].
Regarding claim 32, Bender discloses the method of claim 28. Additionally Bender discloses wherein coupling the one or more sensors to the one or more connectivity modules comprises coupling the one or more sensors to the one or more connectivity modules by a battery power cable of the light mobility vehicle (Fig. 1, #114, #116), wherein the battery power cable permits communication between the one or more sensors and the one or more connectivity modules (Fig. 1, #110).
Regarding claim 36, Bender discloses the safety device of claim 4. Additionally Bender discloses further comprising a GNSS sensor coupled to the one or more connectivity modules by a power supply line of the battery, wherein the GNSS sensor is configured to transmit a GNSS signal to the one or more connectivity modules via the power supply line (“GNSS receiver 118 may be implemented according to any global navigation satellite system, including a GPS, GLONASS, and/or Galileo based receiver and/or other device capable of determining absolute and/or relative position of transit vehicle 110” (para 0040)).
Claims 2-3, 10-13, 29-30, 34-35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 20210402883 (hereinafter, "Bender"), in view of NPL Document "Spatial Interference Mitigation Nulling the Embedded Element Pattern" (hereinafter, "Irazoqui") as applied to claims 1, 9, and 28 above, and in further view of U.S. Pat. No. 12236779 (hereinafter, "Jha").
Regarding claim 2, Bender discloses the safety device of claim 1. However, Bender does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more connectivity modules comprise a C-V2X chip.
Jha, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the one or more connectivity modules comprise a C-V2X chip (“One such V2X application include Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)” (Col. 2, lines 49-56) and “In some implementations, the processor(s) 1552 may be a part of a system on a chip (SoC), System-in-Package (SiP), a multi-chip package (MCP), and/or the like” (Col. 96, lines 16-23)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Bender with the teachings of Jha in order to provide system on a chip (SoC), System-in-Package (SiP), a multi-chip package (MCP); see Jha at least at (Col. 96, lines 16-23).
Regarding claim 3, Bender discloses the safety device of claim 1. However, Bender does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more connectivity modules comprise a cellular modem.
Jha, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the one or more connectivity modules comprise a cellular modem (“For example, the transceiver 1566 may include a cellular transceiver that uses spread spectrum (SPA/SAS) communications for implementing high-speed communications” (Col. 102, lines 30-35)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Bender with the teachings of Jha in order to implement high-speed communications; see Jha at least at (Col. 102, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 10, Bender discloses the safety device of claim 9. However, Bender does not explicitly teach wherein the safety device further comprises a battery management system coupled to the printed circuit board and to the one or more battery cells.
Jha, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the safety device further comprises a battery management system coupled to the printed circuit board and to the one or more battery cells (“The actuators 1574 may be driving control units (e.g., DCUs 174 of FIG. 1), Examples of DCUs 1574 include a Drivetrain Control Unit,..., a Battery Management System” (Col. 104, lines 28-41)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Bender with the teachings of Jha in order to provide a Battery Management System; see Jha at least at (Col. 104, lines 28-41).
Regarding claim 11, Bender discloses the safety device of claim 9. However, Bender does not explicitly teach wherein the first connectivity module comprises a C-V2X chip.
Jha, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the first connectivity module comprises a C-V2X chip (“One such V2X application include Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)” (Col. 2, lines 49-56) and “In some implementations, the processor(s) 1552 may be a part of a system on a chip (SoC), System-in-Package (SiP), a multi-chip package (MCP), and/or the like” (Col. 96, lines 16-23)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Bender with the teachings of Jha in order to provide system on a chip (SoC), System-in-Package (SiP), a multi-chip package (MCP); see Jha at least at (Col. 96, lines 16-23).
Regarding claim 12, Bender discloses the safety device of claim 9. However, Bender does not explicitly teach wherein the first connectivity module comprises a cellular modem.
Jha, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the first connectivity module comprises a cellular modem (“For example, the transceiver 1566 may include a cellular transceiver that uses spread spectrum (SPA/SAS) communications for implementing high-speed communications” (Col. 102, lines 30-35)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Bender with the teachings of Jha in order to implement high-speed communications; see Jha at least at (Col. 102, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 13, Bender discloses the safety device of claim 11. Additionally Bender discloses further comprising a second connectivity module coupled to the printed circuit board (“In some embodiments, various elements or portions of elements of system 100 may be integrated with each other, for example, or may be integrated onto a single printed circuit board (PCB)” (para 0056)),
However, Bender does not explicitly teach
wherein the second connectivity module comprises a cellular modem.
Jha, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the second connectivity module comprises a cellular modem (“For example, the transceiver 1566 may include a cellular transceiver that uses spread spectrum (SPA/SAS) communications for implementing high-speed communications” (Col. 102, lines 30-35)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Bender with the teachings of Jha in order to implement high-speed communications; see Jha at least at (Col. 102, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 29, Bender discloses the method of claim 28. However, Bender does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more connectivity modules comprise a C-V2X chip.
Jha, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the one or more connectivity modules comprise a C-V2X chip (“One such V2X application include Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)” (Col. 2, lines 49-56) and “In some implementations, the processor(s) 1552 may be a part of a system on a chip (SoC), System-in-Package (SiP), a multi-chip package (MCP), and/or the like” (Col. 96, lines 16-23)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Bender with the teachings of Jha in order to provide system on a chip (SoC), System-in-Package (SiP), a multi-chip package (MCP); see Jha at least at (Col. 96, lines 16-23).
Regarding claim 30, Bender discloses the method of claim 29. Additionally Bender discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise a GNNS sensor (“GNSS receiver 118 may be implemented according to any global navigation satellite system, including a GPS, GLONASS, and/or Galileo based receiver and/or other device capable of determining absolute and/or relative position of transit vehicle 110” (para 0040)).
Regarding claim 34, Bender discloses the safety device of claim 2. However, Bender does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more connectivity modules further comprise a cellular modem.
Jha, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the one or more connectivity modules further comprise a cellular modem (“For example, the transceiver 1566 may include a cellular transceiver that uses spread spectrum (SPA/SAS) communications for implementing high-speed communications” (Col. 102, lines 30-35)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Bender with the teachings of Jha in order to implement high-speed communications; see Jha at least at (Col. 102, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 35, Bender discloses the safety device of claim 4. However, Bender does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more connectivity modules exchange basic safety messages with other entities without interference from the one or more battery components.
Jha, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the one or more connectivity modules exchange basic safety messages with other entities (“Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) applications (referred to simply as “V2X”) include the following types of communications Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V), Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) and/or Infrastructure-to-Vehicle (I2V), Vehicle-to-Network (V2N) and/or network-to-vehicle (N2V), Vehicle-to-Pedestrian communications (V2P), and ITS station (ITS-S) to ITS-S communication (X2X)” (Col. 2, lines 30-36)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Bender with the teachings of Jha in order to process and share that knowledge in order to provide more intelligent services; see Jha at least at (Col. 2, lines 30-48).
Irazoqui, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
…without interference from the one or more battery components ((Fig. 5) and “This paper introduces an RF circuit placed at the antenna feeding network creating a steerable null in the embedded element pattern. By creating a null in the embedded element pattern in the direction of the interferer, the unwanted signal gets cancelled out before it reaches the first element of the receiver chain” (page 620, Col. 1, para 7)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Bender with the teachings of Irazoqui in order to provide array-level interference rejection; see Irazoqui at least at [Fig. 5].
Regarding claim 37, Bender discloses the safety device of claim 1. However, Bender does not explicitly teach further comprising a local processing element coupled to the circuit board and in communication with the one or more connectivity modules, wherein the local processing element is configured to assess a threat based the entity data received by the one or more connectivity modules from the one or more other entities.
Jha, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
further comprising a local processing element coupled to the circuit board and in communication with the one or more connectivity modules, wherein the local processing element is configured to assess a threat based the entity data received by the one or more connectivity modules from the one or more other entities ((Fig. 15, #1552) and “n an example, one or more of the AI agents may be configurable or operable to process images captured by sensors 1572 (image capture devices) and/or assess conditions identified by some other subsystem (e.g., an EMA subsystem, CAS and/or CPS entities, and/or the like) to determine a state or condition of the surrounding area” (Col. 106, lines 49-65)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Bender with the teachings of Jha in order to determine or contribute to determining environmental conditions for controlling corresponding control systems of the vehicle; see Jha at least at (Col. 106, lines 49-65).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 20210402883 (hereinafter, "Bender"), in view of NPL Document "Spatial Interference Mitigation Nulling the Embedded Element Pattern" (hereinafter, "Irazoqui") as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of CN104953262A (hereinafter, "Jiang").
Regarding claim 14, Bender discloses the safety device of claim 9. However, Bender does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more specialized antennas comprise an LDS antenna coupled to an external surface of the battery housing.
Jiang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the one or more specialized antennas comprise an LDS antenna coupled to an external surface of the battery housing (Fig. 2).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Bender with the teachings of Jiang in order to provide suitable for mass production and meets the thin-type development tendency of mobile communication equipment such as a mobile phone and the like; see Jiang at least at (abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ALHARBI whose telephone number is (313)446-6621. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00AM – 7:30PM 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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ADAM M ALHARBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663