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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 and 21-39 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-7 and 9-21 of copending Application No. 17/991675 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 21-39 are being anticipated by claim 1-7 and 9-21 of copending Application No. 17/991675.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1 and 21-39 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lerner (US 2023/0096556 A1) in view of Byrne (US 12200568 B1).
As to claims 1, 27 and 34, Lerner discloses a mobile offload method/station/computer-readable medium, comprising: deploying, by one or more computing devices of a mobile offload station (para. 0084, reroute vehicle 120 to vehicle 100), the mobile offload station (para. 0084, vehicle 120) to a proximate distance of an autonomous vehicle (para. 0084, vehicle 100); initiating, by the one or more computing devices, ingestion of the logged data from the AV upon the mobile offload station entering the proximate distance to the AV (Fig. 5, para. 0069, handoff data); and storing, by the one or more computing devices and mobile offload station, on a storage device onboard the mobile offload station, the logged data and offloading, by the one or more computing devices, the logged data onto a cloud infrastructure for further processing upon receipt the logged data from the AV (para. 0069). Lerner does not disclose operating outside its nominal range of operation based on a determination that a logged data on a data storage device on board the AV has exceeded a data storage threshold. However, Byrne teaches AV operating outside its nominal range of operation based on a determination that a logged data on a data storage device on board the AV has exceeded a data storage threshold (Fig. 4). Therefore, given the teaching of Byrne, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the method/station of Lerner, by employing the well-known or conventional features of AV operating outside its nominal range of operation based on a determination that a logged data on a data storage device on board the AV has exceeded a data storage threshold, to offload data when the storage of the AV is getting full.
As to claims 21, 28 and 35, Lerner further discloses the mobile offload station is a further AV (para. 0084).
As to claims 22, 29 and 36, Lerner further discloses the mobile offload station is a semi-autonomous vehicle (para. 0084).
As to claims 23, 30 and 37, the feature of determining, the proximate distance based on a rendezvous point chosen such that a cumulative metric of travel times of the AV and the mobile offload station are minimized is well-known and widely used by navigation systems to determine rendezvous point for meet up.
As to claims 24 and 31, Lerner further discloses wherein the ingestion of the logged data from the AV is performed using a point-to-point wireless connection (para. 0006-0007).
As to claims 25, 32 and 38, Byrne further teaches triggering, by the one or more computing devices, deployment of the mobile offload station to the proximate distance based on the mobile offload station determining that the logged data on the data storage device on board the AV has exceeded the data storage threshold (Fig. 4).
As to claims 26, 33 and 39, Byrne further teaches triggering, by the one or more computing devices, deployment of the mobile offload station to the proximate distance based on instructions received by an operating center upon the operating center determining that the logged data on the data storage device on board the AV has exceeded the data storage threshold (Fig. 4).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Ce Li Li whose telephone number is (571)270-5564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-7PM.
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, Peter D Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
CE LI . LI
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661