Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 06/05/2026. Claims 1-26 have been presented for examination. Claims 1-26 have been examined.
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coon (Pub. No.: 2003/0141990 A1) in view of Alam (Pub. No.: 2014/0354449 A1).
1) In regard to claim 1, Coon discloses the claimed system for providing an emergency vehicle alert (figs. 1-5), comprising:
a first device installed as a part of an emergency vehicle (EV) or attached to the EV (fig. 3), comprising:
a first processor (fig. 3: 31) configured to generate a data signal comprising EV-related data (¶0033); and
a first transmitter (fig. 3: 37) configured to transmit the data signal to a management server (¶0034); and
the management server in communication with the EV (fig. 4a), comprising:
a second processor (fig. 4a: 42) configured to generate a safety warning signal (¶0043); and
a second transmitter (fig. 4a: 45) configured to transmit the safety warning signal to a second device (fig. 5) installed as a part of another vehicle (figs. 1 and 2: 14) near the EV or attached to the another vehicle (¶0043).
Coon does not explicitly disclose select a geofence function for the EV from a plurality of geofence functions provided in a mapping table, wherein the geofence function is selected based on a velocity of the EV provided in EV-related data, determine a geofence from the selected geofence function for the EV based on the received EV-related data of the data signal, and the selected geofence function varies a length and a width of the geofence.
However, Alam discloses it is known for a server to determine a geofence function for the EV from a plurality of geofence functions provided in a mapping table, the geofence function is selected based on a velocity of the EV provided in EV-related data, determine a geofence from the selected geofence function for the EV based on the received EV-related data of the data signal, and the selected geofence function varies a length and a width of the geofence (¶0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the server of Coon to determine a geofence and transmit the signal to devices within the geofenced area, as taught by Alam.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Coon as described above in order to only alert vehicles in the path of the emergency vehicle.
2) In regard to claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Coon and Alam further disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the geofence information comprises a set of location coordinates corresponding to a boundary of the geofence (Coon ¶0051).
3) In regard to claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), Coon and Alam further disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the geofence information comprises an indication that can be used by the second device to retrieve the geofence (Coon ¶0041).
4) In regard to claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Coon and Alam further disclose the system of claim 1, further comprising the second device, the second device comprising: a third processor configured to: determine whether the another vehicle is located within the geofence based on the safety warning signal; control an alert-generation device to perform one or more alert actions when the another vehicle is located within the geofence; and control the alert-generation device to perform no alert action when the another vehicle is out of the geofence; and the alert-generation device configured to perform the alert actions (Coon ¶0051-¶0052).
5) In regard to claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), Coon and Alam further disclose the system of claim 1, wherein a size of the geofence decreases when the velocity of the EV decreases (Alam ¶0078).
6) In regard to claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), Coon and Alam further disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the geofence is defined to extend farther in a forward direction of the EV than any other directions (Alam fig. 1a: 125).
7) In regard to claim 7 (dependent on claim 1), Coon and Alam further disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the geofence is defined to exclude all locations in a rear direction of the EV (Alam fig. 1a: 125).
8) In regard to claim 8 (dependent on claim 1), Coon and Alam further disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the EV-related data further comprises a location of the EV (Coon ¶0023).
9) In regard to claim 9 (dependent on claim 4), Coon and Alam further disclose the system of claim 4, wherein the alert actions comprise at least one of an audible warning signal, a visual warning signal to an operator of the another vehicle (Coon ¶0028).
10) In regard to claim 10 (dependent on claim 1), Coon and Alam further disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the safety warning signal comprises at least one of an ID of the EV, geofence information, one or more alert actions, and a location of the EV (Coon ¶0024).
11) In regard to claim 11, claim 11 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
12) In regard to claim 12 (dependent on claim 11), claim 12 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
13) In regard to claim 13 (dependent on claim 11), claim 13 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
14) In regard to claim 14 (dependent on claim 11), claim 14 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 2 and the references applied.
15) In regard to claim 15 (dependent on claim 11), claim 15 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 3 and the references applied.
16) In regard to claim 16 (dependent on claim 11), claim 16 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 5 and the references applied.
17) In regard to claim 17 (dependent on claim 11), claim 17 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 6 and the references applied.
18) In regard to claim 18 (dependent on claim 11), claim 18 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 7 and the references applied.
19) In regard to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
20) In regard to claim 20 (dependent on claim 19), claim 20 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
21) In regard to claim 21 (dependent on claim 19), claim 21 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
22) In regard to claim 22 (dependent on claim 19), claim 22 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 2 and the references applied.
23) In regard to claim 23 (dependent on claim 19), claim 23 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 3 and the references applied.
24) In regard to claim 24 (dependent on claim 19), claim 24 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 5 and the references applied.
25) In regard to claim 25 (dependent on claim 19), claim 25 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 6 and the references applied.
26) In regard to claim 26 (dependent on claim 19), claim 26 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 7 and the references applied.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,734. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Patent claims together met all of the claim subject matter of current claims. Furthermore, Patent is a sub-genus of the examined application and, therefore, a patent of the genus would, necessarily, extend the rights of the sub-genus should the genus be issued as a patent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on xxx have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to claims 1, 11 and 19, on pages 7-8 of applicant’s response, applicant argues:
“Applicant respectfully asserts that Coon and Alam, taken alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest each element of the claim. Specifically, Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references do not disclose, or otherwise teach or suggest, at least the features of "select a geofence function for the EV from a plurality of geofence functions provided in a mapping table, wherein the geofence function is selected based on a velocity of the EV provided in the EV-related data" and "determine a geofence from the selected geofence function for the EV based on the received EV-related data of the data signal wherein the selected geofence function varies a length and a width of the geofence," as recited in amended claim 1.
The Office Action relies on Coon for most of the overall emergency vehicle alert architecture, but concedes that Coon "does not explicitly disclose" the features of (i) selecting a geofence function for the EV from a plurality of geofence functions "provided in a mapping table," where the selection is based on EV velocity, and (ii) determining a geofence from the selected geofence function wherein the selected function varies both a length and a width of the geofence. The Office Action then asserts that Alam supplies those missing features, citing paragraph 78 alone.
Applicant respectfully contends that the cited portion of Alam does not disclose any "mapping table," "plurality of geofence functions," selecting of a geofence function based on EV velocity, or geofence function that "varies a length and a width of the geofence" as recited in claim 1. Rather, paragraph 78 of Alam describes determining speed and direction of travel of mobile communication device(s) from their locations over time; that is, the cited portion of Alam discloses, at most, a speed and direction computation step. See Alam, [0078].”
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument, because ¶0078 discloses sever determines if an alert should be provided based on the speed and direction of travel (¶0078 discloses “At step 560, the smart alert server 150 calculates a relative location of the mobile communication device(s) with respect to the mobile element based on the received location information from the mobile element and the mobile communication device(s) over the predetermined time period, the speed and direction of travel of the mobile element, and the speed and direction of travel of the mobile communication device(s). At step 570, the smart alert server 150 determines, based on the relative location(s) of the mobile communication device(s) with respect to the mobile element and a predetermined parameter, whether an alert associated with the mobile element should be provided to the mobile communication device(s).”). In addition, ¶0030 of Alam discloses the server may translate travel time into a location radius based on the relative speed of the mobile communication device. In other words, as the velocity of the vehicle increases the device from a further distance are alerted, and when the velocity of the vehicle decreases devices within a smaller radius are alerted. Lastly, Alam ¶0068 discloses the server determines what mobile communication devices to provide alerts to based on specified parameters, and the special parameters may be location, speed, and/or direction of travel. Thus, applicant arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
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 CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights