DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 and 22-31 are currently pending. Claims 10, 23-27 and 31 are indicated as having allowable subject matter. Claims 1-9, 22 and 28-30 are rejected. Claims 1-9 are rejected under new grounds. A response to Applicant’s arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. This is a second Non-Final Office Action.
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 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,558,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims fully encompass the subject matter of the instant claims, the patented claims having the additional narrowing recitation of a node device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bai et al. (US 8,831,224).
Referring to Claim 1: Bai discloses a method comprising:
receiving a request (102) to assume control of equipment (12) generated by a candidate operator (14) via a first communication pathway (“Wi-Fi pairing”) (Col. 3, line 58 – Col. 4, line 9) (Fig. 2);
communicating at least a portion of a key to the candidate operator via a second communication pathway (18, 20, 22, 24, i.e., “cellular service,” “internet” and “OnStar server”) (Fig. 1) that is different from the first communication pathway (Col. 3, lines 1-7), the key comprising a first key part (108) (Col. 4, lines 41-43) (Fig. 2); and
determining the candidate operator to be a confirmed operator based at least in part on obtaining the key from the candidate operator via the first communication pathway (108) (Col. 5, lines 8-19) (Fig. 2).
Referring to Claim 5: Bai discloses the method, further comprising determining the candidate operator (14) to be a denied operator based at least in part on obtaining a different key or key part from the candidate operator via the first communication pathway (Col. 8, lines 20-31).
Referring to Claim 6: Bai discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first communication pathway is associated with a first type of communications network or a first type of communication protocol (“Wi-Fi pairing”) (Col. 3, line 58 – Col. 4, line 9) (Fig. 2), and the second communication pathway is associated with a second type of communications network or a second type of communication protocol (18, 20, 22, 24, i.e., “cellular service,” “internet” and “OnStar server”) (Fig. 1) (Col. 3, lines 1-7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 22 and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen et al. (US 2020/0356651 A1) in view of Bai et al. (US 8,831,224).
Referring to Claim 1: Yen teaches a method comprising:
receiving a request to assume control of equipment generated by a candidate operator (Para. [0041]) via a first communication pathway (Para. [0042]);
communicating at least a portion of a key to the candidate operator via the first communication pathway
determining the candidate operator to be a confirmed operator based at least in part on obtaining the key from the candidate operator via the first communication pathway (Para. [0065-0066]).
While Yen teaches separate first and second communication pathways for the service entity computing system to communicate with the user device and the vehicle computing system, respectively (Para. [0036]), Yen does not specifically teach that a portion of a key is communicated to the candidate operator via the second communication pathway. However, Bai teaches communicating at least a portion of a key to the candidate operator via a second communication pathway (18, 20, 22, 24, i.e., “cellular service,” “internet” and “OnStar server”) (Fig. 1) that is different from the first communication pathway (“Wi-Fi pairing”) (Col. 3, line 58 – Col. 4, line 9), the key comprising a first key part (108) (Col. 4, lines 41-43) (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Yen to communicate a portion of a key to the candidate operator via a second communication pathway, as taught by Bai, in order to bootstrap trust between devices using a trusted out-of-band medium (see Bai, Col. 3, lines 1-7) during authentication processes with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 2: Yen further teaches the method, further comprising transferring control of the equipment to the confirmed operator (Para. [0034]).
Referring to Claim 3: Yen further teaches the method, wherein the equipment is a vehicle (30) or a wayside unit, and the method further comprising obtaining the first key part or a second key part from the wayside unit or from an onboard controller of the vehicle (103) (Para. [0083]).
Referring to Claim 4: Yen further teaches the method, further comprising opening a communication channel (“communication session”) between a vehicle and the confirmed operator responsive to determining that the candidate operator is the confirmed operator (Para. [0009]).
Referring to Claim 5: Yen further teaches the method, further comprising determining the candidate operator to be a denied operator based at least in part on obtaining a different key or key part from the candidate operator (50) via the first communication pathway (Para. [0087], emphasis on last sentence).
Referring to Claim 6: Yen further teaches the method, wherein the first communication pathway is associated with a first type of communications network or a first type of communication protocol, and the second communication pathway is associated with a second type of communications network or a second type of communication protocol (see Yen, Para. [0268]).
Referring to Claim 7: Yen further teaches the method, wherein determining the candidate operator to be the confirmed operator is based at least in part on one or more of an operator credential (Para. [0043]), a vehicle location, a wayside unit location, a vehicle operation schedule, an operator authority level (Para. [0118]), a security token (Para. [0050]), and biometric identification information.
Referring to Claim 22: Yen teaches a method comprising:
receiving a request to assume control of equipment generated by a candidate operator (Para. [0041]) via a first communication pathway (Para. [0042]);
obtaining a key from one or more onboard controllers of the equipment;
communicating the key to the candidate operator via the first communication pathway
determining the candidate operator to be a confirmed operator based at least in part on obtaining the key from the candidate operator via the first communication pathway (Para. [0065-0066]).
While Yen teaches separate first and second communication pathways for the service entity computing system to communicate with the user device and the vehicle computing system, respectively (Para. [0036]), Yen does not specifically teach that a portion of a key is communicated to the candidate operator via the second communication pathway. However, Bai teaches communicating at least a portion of a key to the candidate operator via a second communication pathway (18, 20, 22, 24, i.e., “cellular service,” “internet” and “OnStar server”) (Fig. 1) that is different from the first communication pathway (“Wi-Fi pairing”) (Col. 3, line 58 – Col. 4, line 9), the key comprising a first key part (108) (Col. 4, lines 41-43) (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Yen to communicate a portion of a key to the candidate operator via a second communication pathway, as taught by Bai, in order to bootstrap trust between devices using a trusted out-of-band medium (see Bai, Col. 3, lines 1-7) during authentication processes with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 28: Yen further teaches the method, further comprising, based on determining the candidate operator to be the confirmed operator, opening a communication channel (“communication session”) between the equipment and the confirmed operator (Para. [0009]), wherein opening the communication channel comprises permitting the confirmed operator to control movement of the equipment (Para. [0041]).
Referring to Claim 29: Yen further teaches the method, wherein opening the communication channel (“communication session”) (Para. [0009]) further comprises permitting the confirmed operator to control movement of one or more additional vehicles associated with a vehicle network in addition to the equipment (Para. [0084-0085]).
Referring to Claim 30: Yen further teaches the method, wherein opening the communication channel (“communication session”) comprises establishing a vehicle session between the equipment and the confirmed operator (Para. [0009]), and during the vehicle session the confirmed operator controls one or more of: movement of the equipment along a route (Para. [0034]); entry of the equipment into or blocking of the equipment from a section of the route; speed of the equipment; and propulsion of the equipment.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen in view of Bai and Tamaribuchi (US 2012/0176217 A1).
Referring to Claim 8: Yen does not specifically teach that the confirmed operator is enabled to initiate the equipment to perform one of: switch or secure an interlock or crossing guard; engage an emergency stop; and de-energize electrical equipment.
However, Tamaribuchi teaches a control system, terminal device for maintenance workers, further comprising transferring control of the equipment to the confirmed operator, and the confirmed operator thereby being enabled to initiate the equipment (Para. [0125-0127]) to perform one or more of:
switching or securing one or both of an interlock and a crossing guard to prevent or block another vehicle from entering a section of a route, where the equipment is a wayside unit (Para. [0128]) (Fig. 7);
engaging an emergency stop function to prevent the equipment from moving or from being moved, where the equipment is a vehicle, and the vehicle is or is not part of a vehicle group; and
de-energizing electrical equipment, where the equipment is an electricity providing device (Para. [0128]) (Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Yen to use the system to confirm operators for the type of equipment taught by Tamaribuchi and initiate the equipment to perform switching or securing of an interlock or crossing guard and/or de-energizing electrical equipment, and thereby provide enhanced safety for these equipment operations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 9: Yen does not specifically teach that the equipment is a wayside unit as claimed.
However, Tamaribuchi teaches a control system, wherein the equipment is a wayside unit (920), and the method further comprising signaling a central authority (100) that the section of the route is blocked, and the central authority does not and/or cannot direct another vehicle to enter the section of the route until the confirmed operator returns control over the equipment back to the central authority (Para. [0128]) (Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Yen to use the system to confirm operators for the type of equipment taught by Tamaribuchi and initiate the equipment to perform wayside route blocking in coordination with a central authority, as taught by Tamaribuchi, thereby provide enhanced safety for these equipment operations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 23-27 and 31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 10 and 31, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest that the equipment is the electricity providing device and the method further comprising facilitating access to an interior of the equipment by the confirmed operator. While remotely operable electrical lockout systems are known (e.g., Stippich (US 2015/0317856 A1)), Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify the prior art to meet this limitation.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest “determining the candidate operator to be a confirmed operator is based at least in part on comparing a key communicated by the candidate operator to the one or more offboard controllers via the first communication pathway with the key obtained from the one or more onboard controllers.” Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify the prior art to meet this limitation.
Regarding claim 24 and depending claims 25-27, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest that “the key comprises a first key part, and wherein the first key part is combinable with a second key part to authorize the candidate operator as the confirmed operator,” as recited in claim 24. Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify the prior art to meet this limitation.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the double patenting rejection, Applicant argues that the patented claims of US 11,558,906 contain four additional limitations that are not recited within the instant claims, and thus, the instant claims are patentably distinct. Examiner responds that when the patented claims recite all of the limitations of the instant claims and recite additional, more detailed, limitations, those narrower patented claims are considered to fully encompass subject matter of the broader instant claims. Thus, the broader instant claims fail to distinguish from the narrower patented claims, i.e., this claim situation is the opposite of a domination (see MPEP 804(II)). Thus, the double patenting rejection is maintained for claim 1 and also applied to new claim 16. However, Examiner has withdrawn the double patenting rejections related to the dependent claims therefrom, as these instant depending claims recite limitations more specific than the patented claims.
Regarding the previous obviousness rejection citing Yen in view of Bennett (US 2015/0289587 A1), Applicant argues that Para. [0120] and claim 7 of Bennet fail to adequately teach that a portion of a key is communicated to the candidate operator via the second communication pathway. Examiner agrees and has replaced Bennet with the newly applied Bai reference, thus requiring this second Non-Final Rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights