DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted May 27, 2026. Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on May 27, 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 1-21 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments have been carefully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2017/0339510 (hereinafter “Condeixa”), alternatively in view of U.S. Publication No. 2013/0094398 (hereinafter “Das”), alternatively in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0008122 (hereinafter “Radko”), and in further view of either U.S. Publication No. 2017/0325111 (hereinafter “Reese”) or U.S. Publication No. 2008/0294759 (hereinafter “Biswas”).
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.
Condeixa alternatively modified by Das and Radko teaches display of notification and network information , as well as the applicability of mesh networks (see, e.g., Condeixa [0032], [0035]-[0037], [0040]; Radko [0032], [0048]-[0051]). Condeixa alternatively modified by Das and Radko does not explicitly state “[presenting], via a user interface associated with the fleet vehicle, an indicator that indicates that the wireless communications module of the fleet vehicle is employing the mobile mesh network.” However, this feature is taught by Reese (see, e.g., figures 7 and 9, [0021], [0055]). 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 Reese, such as the network management and interface functionality, within the system of Condeixa alternatively modified by Das and Radko, in order to promote user preference and/or route selection.
Alternatively to Reese, the said feature is taught by Biswas (see, e.g., figure 5, [0028]). 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 Biswas, such as the network management and interface functionality, within the system of Condeixa alternatively modified by Das and Radko, in order to improve network management decisions.
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 and Radko, and further Reese or Biswas, 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 and Radko, and further Reese or Biswas, 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 and Radko, and further Reese or Biswas, 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.
8. 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, in further view of either Reese or Biswas, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0048785 (hereinafter “Ge”).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19: Condeixa alternatively modified by Das and Radko, and further Reese or Biswas, 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, and further Reese or Biswas, 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.
9. Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Condeixa, alternatively in view of Das, alternatively in further view of Radko, in further view of either Reese or Biswas, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0334216 (hereinafter “Montez”).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20: Condeixa alternatively modified by Das and Radko, and further Reese or Biswas, 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, and further Reese or Biswas, 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 Radko, and further Reese or Biswas, 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, and further Reese or Biswas, 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, and further Reese or Biswas, 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.
Regarding claim 21: Condeixa alternatively modified by Das and Radko, and further Reese or Biswas, substantially teaches the system as set forth above regarding claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the logic device is further configured to: determine that the fleet vehicle is abandoned based on a time series of position estimates based on ranges to adjacent mobile nodes in the mobile mesh network; and transmit, via the wireless communication module, an abandoned fleet vehicle alert along the determined data route. However, these features are taught by Montez (See, e.g., [0026], [0028], [0036], [0055]-[0058]). 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 monitoring functionality and signaling, within the system of Condeixa alternatively modified by Das and Radko, and further Reese or Biswas, in order to expand the monitoring and interaction for transportation vehicles.
Conclusion
10. 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
Prosecution Insights