DETAILED ACTION
This Office action nis responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted January 30, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the prior art of record fails to teach “preemptively determin[ing] a data route through a portion of the mobile mesh network to a target data destination based on a planned navigation route and a speed of each of the plurality of fleet vehicles” (Remarks, pp. 9-10). The Examiner has fully considered this point, but respectfully disagrees. For example, Condeixa teaches data dissemination rules based on context information, wherein the context information includes speed of neighbor nodes ([0153]-[0155], [0162]-[0166]). Further, Radko teaches determining data routes based on conditions of other vehicles ([0040]-[0049]).
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
3. 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.
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2017/0339510 (hereinafter “Condeixa”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Condeixa, in view of U.S. Publication No. 2013/0094398 (hereinafter “Das”), and alternatively in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0008122 (hereinafter “Radko”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15: Condeixa teaches a mobile mesh network provisioning system, comprising: a wireless communications module configured to be physically coupled to a fleet vehicle and to form at least a part of a mobile mesh network comprising a plurality of mobile nodes associated with a respective plurality of fleet vehicles, wherein the mobile mesh network comprises a secondary network connection for the fleet vehicle; and a logic device associated with the fleet vehicle and configured to communicate with the wireless communications module (See, e.g., [0031]-[0034] and [0037]; an OBU is coupled to a fleet vehicle and forms a wireless mesh; note also routing manager and/or mobility controller. See also [0174], [0179]; note dynamic configuration for multiple links), wherein the logic device is further configured to:
in response to determining a likely unavailability of a primary network connection for the fleet vehicle based on a planned navigation route of the fleet vehicle to a desired navigation destination: preemptively determine a data route through a portion of the mobile mesh network to a target data destination based on a planned navigation route and a speed of each of the plurality of fleet vehicles; and transmit, via the wireless communications module, fleet data associated with the fleet vehicle along the determined data route (See, e.g., [0035]-[0037], [0155], [0162]-[0166], and [0171]-[0179]; note data dissemination rules based on context information, including path of travel, for routing in consideration of destination node and various probabilities regarding participation).
Condeixa does not explicitly state determining a route. To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Condeixa (See, e.g., [0035]-[0037], [0064], [0070]; note functionality that provides routing for multi-hop connectivity in ad hoc networks; and/or functionality to determine mesh links), this feature is nevertheless taught in Das (See, e.g., figure 2, [0007]-[0011], [0034], and [0040]; note also overlapping teaching with respect to basis on destination and participation variability, i.e. reputation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Das, such as the routing functionality, within the system of Condeixa, in order to improve communication reliability (note Das [0006]).
To the extent Condeixa does not inherently include the feature of determining “in response to determining a likely unavailability of a primary network connection for the fleet vehicle based on a planned travel path of the fleet vehicle” (note, e.g., [0166]), this feature is nevertheless taught in Radko (See, e.g., [0004], [0023], [0038], [0039], [0071], and/or [0197]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Radko, such as the analytics and connectivity functionality, within the system of Condeixa alternatively modified by Das, in order to minimize connection loss.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 1 is applicable to the method and medium of claims 8 and 15, respectively.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16: Condeixa alternatively modified by Das Radko further teaches wherein the logic device is further configured to: detect one or more mobile nodes of the plurality of mobile nodes of the mobile mesh network within an operable range of the wireless communications module; and join the mobile mesh network via the detected one or more mobile nodes prior to the determining the determined data route (See, e.g., Condeixa [0037], [0065], [0177]; Das [0034]; an OBU and/or controller is part of the network prior to determining). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 2 is applicable to the method and medium of claims 9 and 16, respectively.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17: Condeixa alternatively modified by Das Radko further teaches wherein the logic device is further configured to: determine the data route by determining a transmission characteristic estimate for each of a plurality of possible data routes through the portion of the mobile mesh network based on a mobile node participation variability associated with each of the plurality of possible data routes that is determined based on the planned navigation route and the speed of each of the plurality of fleet vehicles; and select a data route from the plurality of possible data routes, the selected data route having a corresponding transmission characteristic estimate closest to a target transmission characteristic (See, e.g., Das [0007], [0011], and [0022]; see also Condeixa [0162], [0164]; parameters and rules are considered for selection and dissemination). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 3.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 3 is applicable to the method and medium of claims 10 and 17, respectively.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18: Condeixa alternatively modified by Das Radko further teaches wherein the determined data route comprises a series of network addresses corresponding to a series of mobile nodes of the mobile mesh network, the series of mobile nodes indicating route legs of the determined data route through the portion of the mobile mesh network (See, e.g., Condeixa [0155], [0159]; also Das [0011], [0027]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 4.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 4 is applicable to the method and medium of claims 11 and 18, respectively.
9. Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Condeixa, alternatively in view of Das, alternatively in further view of Radko, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0048785 (hereinafter “Ge”).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19: Condeixa alternatively modified by Das Radko further teaches relaying and dynamically provisioning (See, e.g., Condeixa [0174], [0186], [0187]; note also the explanation set forth above regarding claim 1), but does not explicitly state wherein the logic device is further configured to: receive a remotely determined data route associated with at least one of the plurality of mobile nodes of the mesh network; provision the wireless communications module according to the received remotely determined data route; relay remotely generated fleet data or fleet status data according to the received remotely determined data route; and reprovision the wireless communications module according to the determined data route However, these features are taught by Ge (See, e.g., [0133] and [0134]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Ge, such as the signaling and/or addressing functionality, within the system of Condeixa alternatively modified by Das and Radko, in order to establish communication paths.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 5 is applicable to the method and medium of claims 12 and 19, respectively.
10. Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Condeixa, alternatively in view of Das, alternatively in further view of Radko, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0334216 (hereinafter “Montez”).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20: Condeixa alternatively modified by Das Radko substantially teaches the system as set forth above regarding claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the logic device is further configured to: receive fleet status data transmitted over the mobile mesh network, wherein the fleet status data comprises a fleet vehicle directive for the fleet vehicle; and control the fleet vehicle in accordance with the received fleet vehicle directive. However, these features are taught by Montez (See, e.g., [0008], [0035], [0036], and [0056]-[0058]; note “micro-mobility” vehicle, e.g. network-connected e-bike or scooter, etc., includes an interface, receives/transmits status information including directives and/or notices). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Montez, such as the micro-mobility vehicle functionality and signaling, within the system of Condeixa alternatively modified by Das and Radko, in order to expand the monitoring and interaction for transportation vehicles.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 6 is applicable to the method and medium of claims 13 and 20, respectively.
Regarding claims 7 and 14: Condeixa alternatively modified by Das, and Egner or Radko, further teaches the feature wherein the fleet data comprises fleet sensor data provided by a fleet vehicle sensor configured to be physically coupled to the fleet vehicle (see, e.g., Condeixa [0165]-[0168]; Das [0041]; and/or Radko [0041], [0128]). To the extent the said feature is not inherent to Condeixa alternatively modified by Das and Radko, it is nevertheless taught in Montez (See, e.g., [0008], [0035], [0036], and [0056]-[0058]; note sensor data). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Montez, such as the micro-mobility vehicle functionality and signaling, within the system of Condeixa alternatively modified by Das and Radko, in order to expand the monitoring and interaction for transportation vehicles.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 7 is applicable to the method of claim 14.
Conclusion
11. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476