DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Y 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 made in response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 4/10/26. Claims 1, 7, 11-14, 17, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments regarding Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 112 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been considered, however, Applicant's amended claims are newly rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as discussed in the corresponding section below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites: "The system of claim 1, wherein the wearable device further comprises a human-machine interface output configured to alert the worker wearing the wearable device of a collision threat or a geofence boundary crossing by at least one of: auditory feedback, visual feedback, or tactile feedback."
This language is vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Means-Plus-Function Language: The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“a human-machine interface output configured to alert the worker wearing the wearable device of a collision threat or a geofence boundary crossing by at least one of: auditory feedback, visual feedback, or tactile feedback”
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Intended Use: Alternatively, the underlined language of the claim as discussed above is further vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the scope of this language is intended to affirmatively require specific performance or whether this language is deliberately articulated to be interpreted as an expression of intended use (as opposed to interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)).
Accordingly, this language does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The system of claim 1, wherein the wearable device further comprises a human-machine interface output that alerts the worker wearing the wearable device of a collision threat or a geofence boundary crossing by at least one of: auditory feedback, visual feedback, or tactile feedback."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ong (US 2022/0046381 A1) in view of Long (CN 112802342 A. For purposes of this examination, Examiner will refer to the English language translation of this reference provided with the First Office Action), and further in view of Hannestad (US 2021/0136543 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ong discloses a system (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 1, and related text) comprising:
a plurality of smart cone devices (e.g. at least roadside unit (RSU) 195, traffic lights 124-B, cameras 122-B, see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 18, 30, Fig. 1, and related text), individual ones of the plurality of smart cone devices being configured to transmit smart cone device localization data comprising absolute location data (see e.g. at least ¶ 69, 101, Fig. 1, 3-4, and related text);
a mobile device comprising a processor configured to transmit pedestrian localization data of a pedestrian associated with the mobile device and to receive alerts (e.g. at least mobile communication devices 120, see e.g. at least ¶ 30, Fig. 1, and related text); and
a vehicle-to-everything base station (e.g. at least base station 135, multi-access Edge Computing (MEC) device 145, device 200, see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 30, 52, Fig. 1-2, and related text) comprising:
a computing system comprising at least one hardware processor (e.g. at least processor 220, see e.g. at least ¶ 52, Fig. 2, and related text) and a memory storing program instructions executable by the at least one hardware processor (e.g. at least memory 230, id.) that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to:
define a virtual geofence boundary of a safe area by processing the smart cone device localization data (see e.g. at least ¶ 68-69, 73, Fig. 3-4A, and related text);
process the pedestrian localization data (see e.g. at least ¶ 28, 63, 68, 74, 78, 89, 101-102, 113, Fig. 4A-5, 10, and related text);
broadcast a location of the pedestrian associated with the mobile device (id.); and
in response to a vehicle or the pedestrian moving closer to a the virtual geofence boundary, provide an alert to at least one of: the pedestrian associated with the mobile device, a passing motorist, or a connected and automated vehicle (CAV) (id.).
Additionally, Long teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Ong including namely: a wearable [device comprising a processor configured to transmit] worker [localization data of a] worker wearing the wearable [device and to receive alerts] (e.g. at least smart vest device (a.k.a. intelligence vest device, wearable intelligent waistcoat device) 2, see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 31, Fig. 1-2, 4, and related text);
[broadcast a location of the] worker wearing the wearable [device] (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 39-40, 113, Fig. 10, and related text);
[in response to a vehicle or the] worker [moving closer to a the virtual geofence boundary, provide an alert to at least one of: the] worker wearing the wearable device, [a passing motorist, or a connected and automated vehicle (CAV)] (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Ong by configuring a wearable device comprising a processor configured to transmit worker localization data of a worker wearing the wearable device and to receive alerts; broadcast a location of the worker wearing the wearable device; and in response to a vehicle or the worker moving closer to a the virtual geofence boundary, provide an alert to at least one of: the worker wearing the wearable device, a passing motorist, or a connected and automated vehicle (CAV) as taught by Long in order to ensure the safety of road maintenance personnel using simple, compact, comfortable, and unobtrusive wearable equipment that is highly intelligent (Long: ¶ 8).
Additionally, Hannestad teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Ong including namely: [a plurality of smart beacon devices, individual ones of the plurality of smart beacon devices being configured to transmit smart beacon localization data comprising absolute location data] (e.g. at least beacons 102, 302, 402, see e.g. at least Fig. 1, 3-4, and related text):
[a computing system configured to: define a virtual geofence boundary of a safe area] by processing at least the absolute location data of the individual ones of the plurality of smart beacon devices, the absolute location data of the individual ones of the plurality of smart beacon devices defining vertices of a polygon forming a perimeter of the virtual geofence boundary (see e.g. at least ¶ 8-14, 24, Fig. 1, 3-4, and related text, defining a smart area 100 that is formed in the shape of a rectangle/polygon and in which the boundaries of the area are demarked by four beacons 102a-102d placed at each of the vertices of the rectangle/polygon).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Ong by configuring a plurality of smart cone devices, individual ones of the plurality of smart cone devices being configured to transmit smart cone localization data comprising absolute location data; a computing system configured to: define a virtual geofence boundary of a safe area by processing at least the absolute location data of the individual ones of the plurality of smart cone devices, the absolute location data of the individual ones of the plurality of smart cone devices defining vertices of a polygon forming a perimeter of the virtual geofence boundary as taught by Hannestad in order to provide precise and accurate dimensions of defined smart areas that may be used to automate systems and operations incorporating and interacting with the precisely defined smart areas (Hannestad: ¶ 49-50).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Ong teaches that the vehicle-to-everything base station supports Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything (C-V2X/PC5) communications and packet exchange for Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J2735 Basic Safety Messages (BSMs) and Personal Safety Message (PSMs) between CAVs and the worker wearing the wearable device (Ong: see e.g. at least ¶ 19; Long: see e.g. at least Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Ong teaches that the vehicle-to-everything base station further comprises a cellular communications link to transmit data including Basic Safety Messages (BSMs) and Personal Safety Messages (PSMs) to a cloud work zone information system (Ong: see e.g. at least ¶ 25; Long: see e.g. at least Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Ong teaches that the computing system is further configured to receive locations of at least one CAV that is out of range of the vehicle-to-everything base station (Ong: see e.g. at least ¶ 17-21; Long: see e.g. at least Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Ong teaches that the computing system is further configured to broadcast information about at least one of:
a work zone geometry (Ong: see e.g. at least Fig. 10, and related text),
a reduced speed limit (Ong: id.), or
a hazard to passing vehicles within range (Ong: id.).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Ong teaches that the processor of the wearable device is further configured to predict a potential collision between the worker wearing the wearable device and the passing motorist (Ong: see e.g. at least ¶ 16, 29, 81, 109; Long: see e.g. at least ¶ 31-32, Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Ong teaches that the wearable device further comprises a human-machine interface output that alerts the worker wearing the wearable device of a collision threat or a geofence boundary crossing by at least one of: auditory feedback, visual feedback, or tactile feedback (Ong: see e.g. at least Fig. 1, and related text; Long: see e.g. at least ¶ 10, 31-32, Fig. 1-4, and related text).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Ong teaches that the individual ones of the plurality of smart cone devices comprise a respective add-on hardware component configured to be attached to a work zone drum or a work zone cone (Ong: see e.g. at least ¶ 34, 52, 62, 85, Fig. 2, 4A, 5, and related text).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Ong teaches that a boundary of the safe area is dynamically adjusted based at least in part on a work zone configuration (Ong: see e.g. at least 59, 67, 74, 83, 93, Fig. 10, and related text).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Ong teaches that one or more of the plurality of smart cone devices are configured to act as a repeater or a router on a wireless mesh network (Ong: see e.g. at least ¶ 38).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Ong teaches that the vehicle-to-everything base station is further configured to communicate with the vehicle in response to determining that the vehicle is moving closer to the safe area (Ong: see e.g. at least ¶ 113, Fig. 10, and related text).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Ong teaches that the vehicle-to-everything base station is further configured to alert the worker wearing the wearable device in response to at least one of: determining that the worker is moving closer to a boundary of the safe area, or determining that a vehicle is moving closer to or is within a set distance of the boundary of the safe area (Ong: see e.g. at least ¶ 31, 39-40, 103, 113, Fig. 1-2, 4, 10, and related text).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Ong teaches that the vehicle-to-everything base station is further configured to compute a precise worker localization inside the safe area and generate a virtual geofence using the smart cone devices by using Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) and Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) technology (see e.g. at least ¶ 31, 91, 101).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Ong teaches that the vehicle-to-everything base station is further configured with a cellular communications link to an off-site data center, through which the vehicle-to-everything base station is configured to upload vehicle information, worker information, and work zone information or to retrieve vehicle information, worker information, and work zone information (see e.g. at least ¶ 19-21, 33, Fig. 1, 10, and related text).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Ong teaches that the vehicle-to-everything base station is further configured to provide one or more alerts to work zone workers and passing motorists including connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) in response to determining that a potential collision is imminent, or in response to determining that the worker is about to cross the virtual geofence boundary (see e.g. at least ¶ 47, 64, 80, 100, 113, Fig. 10, and related text).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Ong teaches that the wearable device comprises a safety vest device or a safety helmet device (Long: see e.g. at least Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Ong teaches that the alert to the worker wearing the wearable device is in response to:
determining that the worker moving closer to or crossing the virtual geofence boundary defined as the safe area (Long: see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 31, 39-40, 103, 113, Fig. 1-2, 4, 10, and related text), or
determining that the CAV is on a trajectory to collide with the worker wearing the wearable device and that a minimum time-to-collision threshold between the CAV and the worker has been reached (Long: see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 31, 39-40, 103, 113, Fig. 1-2, 4, 10, and related text).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Ong teaches that the vehicle-to-everything base station is further configured to broadcast respective locations of a plurality of workers wearing respective wearable devices to one or more CAV within range of the vehicle-to-everything base station (Ong: see also e.g. at least ¶ 39-40, 113, Fig. 10, and related text; Long: see e.g. at least Fig. 1, 4, and related text).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Ong teaches that the vehicle-to-everything base station is further configured to communicate with cloud server applications via a cellular data interface through which the vehicle-to-everything base station is configured to upload respective locations of a plurality of workers wearing respective wearable device, respective locations of the plurality of smart cone devices, and respective locations of one or more CAV-equipped vehicles near the safe area (Ong: see also e.g. at least ¶ 39-40, 113, Fig. 1, 10, and related text; Long: see e.g. at least Fig. 1, 4, and related text)..
Regarding claim 20, Long discloses a method (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 6, and related text), comprising:
transmitting, by a plurality of smart cone devices (e.g. at least roadside unit (RSU) 195, traffic lights 124-B, cameras 122-B, see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 18, 30, Fig. 1, and related text), smart cone device localization data comprising absolute location data (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 69, 101, Fig. 1, 3-4, and related text);
transmitting, by a mobile device (e.g. at least mobile communication devices 120, see e.g. at least ¶ 30, Fig. 1, and related text), pedestrian localization data of a pedestrian associated with the mobile device (id.);
defining a virtual geofence boundary of a safe area by processing, via a vehicle-to-everything base station (e.g. at least base station 135, multi-access Edge Computing (MEC) device 145, device 200, see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 30, 52, Fig. 1-2, and related text), the smart cone device localization data (see e.g. at least ¶ 68-69, 73, Fig. 3-4A, and related text);
processing, by the vehicle-to-everything base station, the pedestrian localization data (see e.g. at least ¶ 28, 63, 68, 74, 78, 89, 101-102, 113, Fig. 4A-5, 10, and related text);
broadcasting, by the vehicle-to-everything base station, a location of the pedestrian associated with the mobile device (id.); and
in response to a vehicle or the pedestrian moving closer to the virtual geofence boundary, providing, by the vehicle-to-everything base station, an alert to at least one of: the pedestrian associated with the mobile device, a passing motorist, or a connected and automated vehicle (CAV) (id.).
Additionally, Long teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Ong including namely: [transmitting, by a] wearable device, worker [localization data of a] worker wearing the wearable [device] (e.g. at least smart vest device (a.k.a. intelligence vest device, wearable intelligent waistcoat device) 2, see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 31, Fig. 1-2, 4, and related text);
[processing, by the vehicle-to-everything base station, the] worker [localization data] (id.);
[broadcasting, by the vehicle-to-everything base station, a location of the] worker wearing the wearable [device] (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 39-40); and
[in response to a vehicle or the] worker [moving closer to the virtual geofence boundary, providing, by the vehicle-to-everything base station, an alert to at least one of: the] worker wearing the wearable [device, a passing motorist, or a connected and automated vehicle (CAV)] (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Ong by transmitting, by a wearable device, worker localization data of a worker wearing the wearable device; processing, by the vehicle-to-everything base station, the worker localization data; broadcasting, by the vehicle-to-everything base station, a location of the worker wearing the wearable device; and in response to a vehicle or the worker moving closer to the virtual geofence boundary, providing, by the vehicle-to-everything base station, an alert to at least one of: the worker wearing the wearable device, a passing motorist, or a connected and automated vehicle (CAV) as taught by Long in order to ensure the safety of road maintenance personnel using simple, compact, comfortable, and unobtrusive wearable equipment that is highly intelligent (Long: ¶ 8).
Additionally, Hannestad teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Ong including namely: [transmitting, by a plurality of smart beacon devices, smart beacon device localization data comprising absolute location data] (e.g. at least beacons 102, 302, 402, see e.g. at least Fig. 1, 3-4, and related text):
[defining a virtual geofence boundary of a safe area] by processing, via a vehicle-to-everything base station, at least the absolute location data of individual ones of the plurality of smart] beacon devices, the absolute location data of the individual ones of the plurality of smart beacon devices defining vertices of a polygon forming a perimeter of the virtual geofence boundary (see e.g. at least ¶ 8-14, 24, Fig. 1, 3-4, and related text, defining a smart area 100 that is formed in the shape of a rectangle/polygon and in which the boundaries of the area are demarked by four beacons 102a-102d placed at each of the vertices of the rectangle/polygon).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Ong by transmitting, by a plurality of smart cone devices, smart cone device localization data comprising absolute location data; defining a virtual geofence boundary of a safe area by processing, via a vehicle-to-everything base station, at least the absolute location data of individual ones of the plurality of smart cone devices, the absolute location data of the individual ones of the plurality of smart cone devices defining vertices of a polygon forming a perimeter of the virtual geofence boundary as taught by Hannestad in order to provide precise and accurate dimensions of defined smart areas that may be used to automate systems and operations incorporating and interacting with the precisely defined smart areas (Hannestad: ¶ 49-50).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. 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 900-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights