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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 02/20/2026. Claims 1, 4, 7, 10-15, 17-18, 21, 24, and 27-33 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 14, 18, 31, and 33 overcome the previous objection. The objection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4, 7, 10-15, 17-18, 21, 24, and 27-33 overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 7, 10-14, 17-18, 24, 27-31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels (U.S. 2015/0371517 A1) in view of El-Dinary (U.S. 2018/0279107 A1).
Claim 1, Daniels teaches:
A computer-implemented method for alerting individuals regarding the approach of an emergency vehicle (Daniels, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0025]), the method comprising:
transmitting, from a first device associated with the emergency vehicle, a short-range signal during travel along a travel path (Daniels, Paragraphs [0025-0026], The vehicle 100 transmits a signal 102, which is a radio frequency (RF) signal, which is equivalent to a short-range signal. The vehicle 100 may be an emergency vehicle (see Daniels, Paragraphs [0030-0031]).);
receiving the short-range signal by a second device associated with an individual travelling along or towards said travel path, and located inside a pre-defined signal range of the first device (Daniels, Fig. 1: 110, 130, Paragraphs [0025-0026], The vehicle 110 and pedestrian 130 are traveling along the same path as vehicle 100, and whose devices would be able to detect signal 102.);
in response to receiving the short-range signal, providing, by the second device, a first alert to the individual regarding the approach of the emergency vehicle thereby enabling the individual to take action to avoid obstructing the emergency vehicle (Daniels, Paragraphs [0028-0029], The signal 102 may trigger an idle audio system in the vehicle 110 and a device operated by pedestrian 130 to provide an alert regarding vehicle 100. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the operator of the vehicle 110 and pedestrian 130 to then be able to respond according to the alert, e.g. take action to avoid obstructing the vehicle 100.);
providing, by the second device, a second alert to the individual when the second device is no longer within the pre-defined signal range of the first device (Daniels, Paragraph [0052], Based on whether an alerting device is close or within a path trajectory of an alerted device, the alert type/magnitude varies based on the proximity and/or trajectory. The subsequent alert(s) represent at least a second alert.); and
wherein during instances when there is a first and a subsequent emergency vehicle (Daniels, Paragraphs [0002] and [0031-0032], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the system to be implementable with a plurality of types of emergency vehicles, e.g. police cars, ambulances, fire trucks, etc.), the first and second alert received by the second device to indicate to the individual that they are within or no longer within the pre-defined signal range of the first device associated with the first emergency vehicle (Daniels, Paragraph [0052], Based on whether an alerting device is close or within a path trajectory of an alerted device, the alert type/magnitude varies based on the proximity and/or trajectory.), are different to the first and second alert received by the second device to indicate to the individual that they are within or no longer within the pre-defined signal range of the first device associated with the subsequent emergency vehicle (Daniels, Paragraph [0052], Based on whether an alerting device is close or within a path trajectory of an alerted device, the alert type/magnitude varies based on the proximity and/or trajectory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for each alert associated with two different vehicles to be different, because the alerts are different based on the proximity and/or trajectory of the vehicle. For example, if two approaching vehicles are transmitting a signal 102, one vehicle would be closer to pedestrian 130 and vehicle 110 than the other, and it is within the scope of the generated alerts for the alerts to be different for each approaching vehicle based on their relative proximities.).
Daniels does not specifically teach:
Wherein the short-range signal comprises an individual signal stamp of a predefined frequency and an identifier that identifies the emergency vehicle from which the short-range signal is being transmitted.
El-Dinary teaches:
Wherein the short-range signal comprises an individual signal stamp of a predefined frequency (El-Dinary, Paragraph [0012], The digital radio broadcast is broadcasted at a predetermined frequency.) and an identifier that identifies the emergency vehicle from which the short-range signal is being transmitted (El-Dinary, Paragraph [0077], The Common Alert Protocol includes warning codes to identify an approaching emergency vehicle.) and multiple emergency vehicles (El-Dinary, Paragraph [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Daniels by integrating the teaching of emergency vehicle proximity warnings, as taught by El-Dinary.
The motivation would be further enable drivers to modify their behavior by providing additional information/instruction to the drivers in addition to indicating the emergency vehicle’s approach (see El-Dinary, Paragraph [0010-0011]).
Claim 7, Daniels in view of El-Dinary further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first device is a mobile device of the driver or passenger (Daniels, Paragraph [0067], Additionally, because the signal 102 is generated from a moving vehicle 100, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the device/component that performs the transmitting to also be mobile, because it is located on or within the moving vehicle 100.).
Claim 10, Daniels in view of El-Dinary further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the second device is a mobile device of the driver or a passenger of the vehicle configured to provide an audible and/or visual alert when the short-range signal is received by the mobile device (Daniels, Paragraph [0028], The audio system within the vehicle 110 generates the alert. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the audio system to be a mobile device, because the audio system resides within a moving vehicle 110, and is therefore also movable (see also, Daniels, Paragraph [0067]).).
Claim 11, Daniels in view of El-Dinary further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the second device associated with each individual is configured to receive signals at the predefined frequency (El-Dinary, Paragraph [0107], The receiver system is set to the emergency notification frequency.).
Claim 12, Daniels in view of El-Dinary further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the individual signal stamp comprises Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates associated with the emergency vehicle (El-Dinary, Paragraph [0041]).
Claim 13, Daniels in view of El-Dinary further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the individual signal stamp comprises any additional information relating to the emergency vehicle that can be monitored, comprising the speed and travel direction of the vehicle (Daniels, Paragraph [0052], Based on the received signal from an alerting device, the path trajectory and speedometer reading may be used to determine state transitions of the alerting device.).
Claim 14, Daniels in view of El-Dinary further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the short-range signal is transmitted by the first device in a forward direction relative to a direction of travel of the emergency vehicle (Daniels, Fig. 1: 102, Paragraph [0025], The signal 102 is a quasi-directional signal to target devices along an anticipated path of the vehicle 100.).
Claim 17, Daniels in view of El-Dinary further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, the method further comprising operating a central server to communicate with the first and second devices associated with the emergency vehicles and individuals respectively (Daniels, Paragraph [0066], A server device may be associated with the computing devices of the system.), wherein the central server receives GPS coordinates associated with each emergency vehicle, and the central server causes the first and/or second devices to display a map or similar graphical representation that depicts the position of the emergency vehicle(s) relative to individual(s) within signal range of the emergency vehicle(s) (Daniels, Paragraph [0030-0031], The system utilizes the known location data of all of the vehicles, including emergency vehicle 200, in order to map a dynamic path for the emergency vehicle 200 and present the dynamic path to the emergency vehicle 200.).
Claim 18, Daniels teaches:
A system for alerting individuals regarding the approach of an emergency vehicle (Daniels, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0025]), the system including comprising:
a transmitter associated with the emergency vehicle operable to transmit a short-range signal during travel along a travel path (Daniels, Paragraphs [0025-0026], The vehicle 100 transmits a signal 102, which is a radio frequency (RF) signal, which is equivalent to a short-range signal. The vehicle 100 may be an emergency vehicle (see Daniels, Paragraphs [0030-0031]).);
a receiver associated with an individual travelling along or towards said travel path and operable to receive the short-range signal when the individual is located within a pre-defined signal range of the transmitter (Daniels, Fig. 1: 110, 130, Paragraphs [0025-0026], The vehicle 110 and pedestrian 130 are traveling along the same path as vehicle 100, and whose devices would be able to detect signal 102.);
wherein, in response to receiving the short-range signal, the receiver is operable to provide a first alert to the individual regarding the approach of the emergency vehicle to thereby enable the individual to take action to avoid obstructing the emergency vehicle (Daniels, Paragraphs [0028-0029], The signal 102 may trigger an idle audio system in the vehicle 110 and a device operated by pedestrian 130 to provide an alert regarding vehicle 100. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the operator of the vehicle 110 and pedestrian 130 to then be able to respond according to the alert, e.g. take action to avoid obstructing the vehicle 100.);
wherein the receiver is operable to provide a second alert to the individual when the second device is no longer within the pre-defined signal range of the first device (Daniels, Paragraph [0052], Based on whether an alerting device is close or within a path trajectory of an alerted device, the alert type/magnitude varies based on the proximity and/or trajectory. The subsequent alert(s) represent at least a second alert.); and
wherein during instances when there is a first and a subsequent emergency vehicle (Daniels, Paragraphs [0002] and [0031-0032], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the system to be implementable with a plurality of types of emergency vehicles, e.g. police cars, ambulances, fire trucks, etc.), the first and second alert received by the second device to indicate to the individual that they are within or no longer within the pre-defined signal range of the first device associated with the first emergency vehicle (Daniels, Paragraph [0052], Based on whether an alerting device is close or within a path trajectory of an alerted device, the alert type/magnitude varies based on the proximity and/or trajectory.), are different to the first and second alert received by the second device to indicate to the individual that they are within or no longer within the pre-defined signal range of the first device associated with the subsequent emergency vehicle (Daniels, Paragraph [0052], Based on whether an alerting device is close or within a path trajectory of an alerted device, the alert type/magnitude varies based on the proximity and/or trajectory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for each alert associated with two different vehicles to be different, because the alerts are different based on the proximity and/or trajectory of the vehicle. For example, if two approaching vehicles are transmitting a signal 102, one vehicle would be closer to pedestrian 130 and vehicle 110 than the other, and it is within the scope of the generated alerts for the alerts to be different for each approaching vehicle based on their relative proximities.).
Daniels does not specifically teach:
Wherein the short-range signal includes comprises an individual signal stamp of a predefined frequency and an identifier that identifies the emergency vehicle from which the short-range signal is being transmitted.
El-Dinary teaches:
Wherein the short-range signal includes comprises an individual signal stamp of a predefined frequency (El-Dinary, Paragraph [0012], The digital radio broadcast is broadcasted at a predetermined frequency.) and an identifier that identifies the emergency vehicle from which the short-range signal is being transmitted (El-Dinary, Paragraph [0077], The Common Alert Protocol includes warning codes to identify an approaching emergency vehicle.) and multiple emergency vehicles (El-Dinary, Paragraph [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Daniels by integrating the teaching of emergency vehicle proximity warnings, as taught by El-Dinary.
The motivation would be further enable drivers to modify their behavior by providing additional information/instruction to the drivers in addition to indicating the emergency vehicle’s approach (see El-Dinary, Paragraph [0010-0011]).
Claim 24, Daniels in view of El-Dinary further teaches:
The system of claim 18, wherein the first device is a mobile device of the driver or passenger (Daniels, Paragraph [0067], Additionally, because the signal 102 is generated from a moving vehicle 100, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the device/component that performs the transmitting to also be mobile, because it is located on or within the moving vehicle 100.).
Claim 27, Daniels in view of El-Dinary further teaches:
The system of claim 18, wherein the second device is a mobile device of the driver or a passenger of the vehicle configured to provide an audible and/or visual alert when the short-range signal is received by the mobile device (Daniels, Paragraph [0028], The audio system within the vehicle 110 generates the alert. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the audio system to be a mobile device, because the audio system resides within a moving vehicle 110, and is therefore also movable (see also, Daniels, Paragraph [0067]).).
Claim 28, Daniels in view of El-Dinary further teaches:
The system of claim 18, wherein the second device associated with each individual is configured to receive signals at the predefined frequency (El-Dinary, Paragraph [0107], The receiver system is set to the emergency notification frequency.).
Claim 29, Daniels in view of El-Dinary further teaches:
The system of claim 18, wherein the individual signal stamp comprises Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates associated with the emergency vehicle (El-Dinary, Paragraph [0041]).
Claim 30, Daniels in view of El-Dinary further teaches:
The system of claim 18, wherein the individual signal stamp includes comprises any additional useful information relating to the emergency vehicle that can be monitored, including comprising the speed and travel direction of the vehicle (Daniels, Paragraph [0052], Based on the received signal from an alerting device, the path trajectory and speedometer reading may be used to determine state transitions of the alerting device.).
Claim 31, Daniels in view of El-Dinary further teaches:
The system of claim 18, wherein the short-range signal is transmitted by the first device in a forward direction relative to a direction of travel of the emergency vehicle (Daniels, Fig. 1: 102, Paragraph [0025], The signal 102 is a quasi-directional signal to target devices along an anticipated path of the vehicle 100.).
Claim 33, Daniels teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed on a computer, causes one or more processors of the computer to perform the steps (Daniels, Paragraph [0006]) of:
causing a first device associated with an emergency vehicle to transmit a short-range signal during travel along a travel path (Daniels, Paragraphs [0025-0026], The vehicle 100 transmits a signal 102, which is a radio frequency (RF) signal, which is equivalent to a short-range signal. The vehicle 100 may be an emergency vehicle (see Daniels, Paragraphs [0030-0031]).);
causing a second device associated with an individual travelling along or towards said travel path, and located inside a pre-defined range of the first device, to receive the short-range signal (Daniels, Fig. 1: 110, 130, Paragraphs [0025-0026], The vehicle 110 and pedestrian 130 are traveling along the same path as vehicle 100, and whose devices would be able to detect signal 102.);
in response to receiving the short-range signal, causing the second device to provide a first alert to the individual regarding the approach of the emergency vehicle thereby enabling the individual to take action to avoid obstructing the emergency vehicle (Daniels, Paragraphs [0028-0029], The signal 102 may trigger an idle audio system in the vehicle 110 and a device operated by pedestrian 130 to provide an alert regarding vehicle 100. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the operator of the vehicle 110 and pedestrian 130 to then be able to respond according to the alert, e.g. take action to avoid obstructing the vehicle 100.);
causing the second device to provide a second alert to the individual when the second device is no longer within the pre-defined signal range of the first device (Daniels, Paragraph [0052], Based on whether an alerting device is close or within a path trajectory of an alerted device, the alert type/magnitude varies based on the proximity and/or trajectory. The subsequent alert(s) represent at least a second alert.); and
wherein during instances when there is a first and a subsequent emergency vehicle (Daniels, Paragraphs [0002] and [0031-0032], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the system to be implementable with a plurality of types of emergency vehicles, e.g. police cars, ambulances, fire trucks, etc.), the first and second alert received by the second device to indicate to the individual that they are within or no longer within the pre-defined signal range of the first device associated with the first emergency vehicle (Daniels, Paragraph [0052], Based on whether an alerting device is close or within a path trajectory of an alerted device, the alert type/magnitude varies based on the proximity and/or trajectory.), are different to the first and second alert received by the second device to indicate to the individual that they are within or no longer within the pre-defined signal range of the first device associated with the subsequent emergency vehicle (Daniels, Paragraph [0052], Based on whether an alerting device is close or within a path trajectory of an alerted device, the alert type/magnitude varies based on the proximity and/or trajectory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for each alert associated with two different vehicles to be different, because the alerts are different based on the proximity and/or trajectory of the vehicle. For example, if two approaching vehicles are transmitting a signal 102, one vehicle would be closer to pedestrian 130 and vehicle 110 than the other, and it is within the scope of the generated alerts for the alerts to be different for each approaching vehicle based on their relative proximities.).
Daniels does not specifically teach:
Wherein the short-range signal includes comprises an individual signal stamp of a predefined frequency and an identifier that identifies the emergency vehicle from which the short-range signal is being transmitted.
El-Dinary teaches:
Wherein the short-range signal includes comprises an individual signal stamp of a predefined frequency (El-Dinary, Paragraph [0012], The digital radio broadcast is broadcasted at a predetermined frequency.) and an identifier that identifies the emergency vehicle from which the short-range signal is being transmitted (El-Dinary, Paragraph [0077], The Common Alert Protocol includes warning codes to identify an approaching emergency vehicle.), and multiple emergency vehicles (El-Dinary, Paragraph [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Daniels by integrating the teaching of emergency vehicle proximity warnings, as taught by El-Dinary.
The motivation would be further enable drivers to modify their behavior by providing additional information/instruction to the drivers in addition to indicating the emergency vehicle’s approach (see El-Dinary, Paragraph [0010-0011]).
Claims 4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels (U.S. 2015/0371517 A1) in view of El-Dinary (U.S. 2018/0279107 A1), in view of Wood (U.S. 2019/0236947 A1).
Claim 4, Daniels in view of El-Dinary further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Daniels in view of El-Dinary does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the pre-defined range of the first device extends further than an audible range of a conventional emergency vehicle siren.
Wood teaches:
Wherein the pre-defined range of the first device extends further than an audible range of a conventional emergency vehicle siren (Wood, Paragraph [0038], The transmission range of the RF transmitter extends greater than 300 meters. This is consistent with the Applicant’s specification, which defines a range of approximately 300 meters to extend further than an audible range of a conventional emergency vehicle siren (see Applicant’s specification, Paragraph [0014]).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Daniels in view of El-Dinary, by integrating the teaching of a transmitter capable of transmitting over a distance, as taught by Wood.
The motivation would be to provide an advanced warning to vehicle drivers of an approaching emergency vehicle (see Wood, Abstract and Paragraph [0004]).
Claim 21, Daniels in view of El-Dinary further teaches:
The system of claim 18.
Daniels in view of El-Dinary does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the pre-defined range of the first device extends further than an audible range of a conventional emergency vehicle siren.
Wood teaches:
Wherein the pre-defined range of the first device extends further than an audible range of a conventional emergency vehicle siren (Wood, Paragraph [0038], The transmission range of the RF transmitter extends greater than 300 meters. This is consistent with the Applicant’s specification, which defines a range of approximately 300 meters to extend further than an audible range of a conventional emergency vehicle siren (see Applicant’s specification, Paragraph [0014]).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Daniels in view of El-Dinary, by integrating the teaching of a transmitter capable of transmitting over a distance, as taught by Wood.
The motivation would be to provide an advanced warning to vehicle drivers of an approaching emergency vehicle (see Wood, Abstract and Paragraph [0004]).
Claims 15 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels (U.S. 2015/0371517 A1) in view of El-Dinary (U.S. 2018/0279107 A1), in view of Guerena et al. (U.S. 2021/0235285 A1).
Claim 15, Daniels in view of El-Dinary further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the signal transmission profile is a directional co-aligned with the direction of travel of the vehicle such that only individuals to the front and side of the emergency vehicle are within signal range (Daniels, Fig. 1: 102, Paragraph [0025], In the example of Fig. 1, vehicle 110 and pedestrian 130 are targeted with the signal 102, which represents individuals to the front and side of the vehicle 100, respectively, and purposefully are not transmitted to vehicle 120 or pedestrian 140, which are not located to the front or side of the vehicle 100 in the direction of travel.).
Daniels in view of El-Dinary does not specifically teach:
Wherein the signal transmission profile is an elliptical shape with the primary axis of the ellipsis co-aligned with the direction of travel of the vehicle.
Guerena teaches:
Wherein the signal transmission profile is an elliptical shape (Guerena, Fig. 1: 112, 114, 116, Paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Daniels in view of El-Dinary by integrating the teaching of antenna beam patterns, as taught by Guerena.
The motivation would be to improve communications efficiency between devices, e.g. vehicles (see Guerena, Paragraph [0026]).
Claim 32, Daniels in view of El-Dinary further teaches:
The system of claim 18, wherein the signal transmission profile is a directional co-aligned with the direction of travel of the vehicle such that only individuals to the front and side of the emergency vehicle are within signal range (Daniels, Fig. 1: 102, Paragraph [0025], In the example of Fig. 1, vehicle 110 and pedestrian 130 are targeted with the signal 102, which represents individuals to the front and side of the vehicle 100, respectively, and purposefully are not transmitted to vehicle 120 or pedestrian 140, which are not located to the front or side of the vehicle 100 in the direction of travel.).
Daniels in view of El-Dinary does not specifically teach:
Wherein the signal transmission profile is an elliptical shape with the primary axis of the ellipsis co-aligned with the direction of travel of the vehicle.
Guerena teaches:
Wherein the signal transmission profile is an elliptical shape (Guerena, Fig. 1: 112, 114, 116, Paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Daniels in view of El-Dinary by integrating the teaching of antenna beam patterns, as taught by Guerena.
The motivation would be to improve communications efficiency between devices, e.g. vehicles (see Guerena, Paragraph [0026]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the first and second alert) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With respect to the Applicant’s argument on Pages 8-11 with regards to the Applicant’s invention, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the Applicant’s claimed invention inherently or explicitly defines the Applicant’s invention away from the prior art of record. Paragraphs [0051-0052] of Daniels discloses generating alerts for an alerted device, e.g. a device of pedestrian 130, based on proximity and/or path trajectory of an alerting device and the alerted device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for proximity based alerts to be indicative of both devices being within the pre-defined signal range and wherein the trajectory based alerts to be indicative of both devices potentially not being within the pre-defined signal range but whose trajectories indicate the potential of both devices intersecting/overlapping, thereby eventually being within the pre-defined signal range. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is within the scope of the teachings of Daniels for diverging trajectories to change back into intersecting/overlapping trajectories (because emergency vehicles 200, for example, operate with a dynamic path 230 (see Daniels, Paragraph [0030]) and pedestrian pathing is at the discretion of the pedestrian), wherein the resuming of the trajectory based alerts would thus be functionally equivalent to alerts when the devices are no longer within the pre-defined signal range. Additionally, the alerts may be different according to the type of alerting device and to the proximity of the devices to each other. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for different types of alerts to be generated for different types of emergency vehicles, e.g. a firetruck versus an ambulance. The Examiner notes, however, that it appears the Applicant intends for the first and second alerts to be specifically applied to “proximity-type” alerts, wherein each emergency vehicle is assigned a specific type of alert that is identifiable by the pedestrian such that the pedestrian is able to differentiate the proximity of each emergency vehicle individually based on the assigned alert. The claims, as currently amended, however, do not inherently or explicitly recite this difference.
Furthermore, in response to the Applicant’s argument that the Daniels reference fails to teach a plurality of emergency vehicles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the system in Daniels to be applicable to a plurality of emergency vehicles. Such a modification would ensure that the system remains functional for its intended purpose and would thus yield predictable results. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the need for the system to be capable of handling more than one emergency vehicle, otherwise the system would fail if another emergency vehicle is simultaneously present.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/JAMES J YANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686