DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on July 12, 2023 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group V, which is directed to claims 30-47 in the reply filed on February 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially createddoctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent theunjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patentand to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutoryobviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claimsare not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinctfrom the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipatedby, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir.1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163USPQ 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 a nonstatutorydouble patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown tobe commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result ofactivities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign aterminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 30-47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipation-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 7-10, 12, and 20 of U.S. Patent 9,432,450. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. More specifically, the present application is a broader version of 9,432,450.
Please see the following table for the claim 30 analysis:
18/221,020
9,432,450
Claim Interpretation
30. A computer-implemented method, comprising the following operations performed via one or more processors:
identifying one or more storage devices to store data while a mobile device travels an expected route;
selecting one or more of the storage devices based on at least one of a geographical distance between the storage device and the expected route, a number of links between the storage device and the expected route, a processing speed of the storage device, or a speed for communications between the storage device and the expected route; and
enabling data published by or provided to the mobile device, to be stored on the one or more selected storage devices.
1. A method of staging real-time data in proximity to a mobile device, the
method comprising:
predicting a plurality of geographic locations to which the mobile device may be associated in a subsequent time period based on a set of
known package delivery routes;
identifying a set of potential storage devices for each of the predicted plurality of geographic locations, and determining a network speed linking the mobile device to each of the potential storage
devices;
selecting one or more storage devices from among the set of potential storage devices based on the determined network speed and a physical distance
between the storage device and the geographical location; determining a weight for each of the selected storage devices, the weight based on a probability that the mobile device will travel to a respective one of the predicted
plurality of geographic locations; and
enabling the mobile device to access a set of data at a location corresponding to one of the predicted plurality of geographic locations by transmitting the set of data to a subset of the selected storage devices based on the weight.
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, the present application is a broader version and therefore is anticipated by 9,432,450.
Claims 30-47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipation-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent 9,894,590. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. More specifically, the present application is a broader version of 9,894,590.
Please see the following table for the claim 30 analysis:
18/221,020
9,894,590
Claim Interpretation
30. A computer-implemented method, comprising the following operations performed via one or more processors:
identifying one or more storage devices to store data while a mobile device travels an expected route;
selecting one or more of the storage devices based on at least one of a geographical distance between the storage device and the expected route, a number of links between the storage device and the expected route, a processing speed of the storage device, or a speed for communications between the storage device and the expected route; and
enabling data published by or provided to the mobile device, to be stored on the one or more selected storage devices.
1. A computer-implemented method of staging real-time data in proximity to
a mobile device, the method comprising the following operations performed via
one or more processors: identifying a set of expected routes associated with the mobile device based on location data associated with the mobile device;
identifying a set of potential storage devices based on the set of expected routes, wherein each potential storage device is associated with at least one
expected route;
determining a set of latency factors for each potential
storage device based on a geographical distance between the potential storage
device and an expected route;
selecting a set of storage devices at which to stage real-time data, wherein the set of selected storage devices are selected from among the set of potential storage devices as a function of the set of latency factors for each potential storage device; and
staging real-time data
proximate to the mobile device by transmitting the real-time data to a selected storage device and enabling the mobile device to access the real-time data.
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, the present application is a broader version and therefore is anticipated by 9,894,590.
Claims 30-47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipation-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 20 of U.S. Patent 10,334,502. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. More specifically, the present application is a broader version of 10,334,502.
Please see the following table for the claim 30 analysis:
18/221,020
10,334,502
Claim Interpretation
30. A computer-implemented method, comprising the following operations performed via one or more processors:
identifying one or more storage devices to store data while a mobile device travels an expected route;
selecting one or more of the storage devices based on at least one of a geographical distance between the storage device and the expected route, a number of links between the storage device and the expected route, a processing speed of the storage device, or a speed for communications between the storage device and the expected route; and
enabling data published by or provided to the mobile device, to be stored on the one or more selected storage devices.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising the following operations
performed via one or more processors:
identifying an expected route associated with a mobile device;
identifying a set of storage devices based on the
expected route, wherein the set of storage devices are within a predetermined
proximity to the expected route; determining a set of latency factors for each
storage device in the identified set of storage devices based on at least one
of a geographical distance between each storage device and the expected route,
a number of links between each storage device and the expected route, a
processing speed of each storage device, or a network speed between each
storage device and the expected route;
selecting one or more storage devices from among the identified set of storage devices based on the set of latency factors for each storage device; and
enabling real-time data published by or provided to the mobile device, to be stored on the one or more selected storage
devices.
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, the present application is a broader version and therefore is anticipated by 10,334,502.
Claims 30-47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipation-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 7-10, 12, and 20 of U.S. Patent 10,993,167. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. More specifically, the present application is a broader version of 10,993,167.
Please see the following table for the claim 30 analysis:
18/221,020
10,993,167
Claim Interpretation
30. A computer-implemented method, comprising the following operations performed via one or more processors:
identifying one or more storage devices to store data while a mobile device travels an expected route;
selecting one or more of the storage devices based on at least one of a geographical distance between the storage device and the expected route, a number of links between the storage device and the expected route, a processing speed of the storage device, or a speed for communications between the storage device and the expected route; and
enabling data published by or provided to the mobile device, to be stored on the one or more selected storage devices.
26. A computer-implemented method, comprising the following operations performed via one or more processors:
identifying an expected route associated with a mobile device;
identifying one or more storage devices in proximity the expected route;
selecting one or more of the identified storage devices based on at least one of a geographical distance between the identified storage devices and the expected route, a number of links between the identified storage devices and the expected route, a processing speed of the identified storage devices, or a speed for communications between the identified storage devices and the expected route; and
enabling real-time data published by or provided to the mobile device, to be stored on the one or more selected storage devices.
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, the present application is a broader version and therefore is anticipated by 10,993,167.
Claims 30-47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipation-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent 11,737,007. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. More specifically, the present application is a broader version of 11,737,007.
Please see the following table for the claim 30 analysis:
18/221,020
11,737,007
Claim Interpretation
30. A computer-implemented method, comprising the following operations performed via one or more processors:
identifying one or more storage devices to store data while a mobile device travels an expected route;
selecting one or more of the storage devices based on at least one of a geographical distance between the storage device and the expected route, a number of links between the storage device and the expected route, a processing speed of the storage device, or a speed for communications between the storage device and the expected route; and
enabling data published by or provided to the mobile device, to be stored on the one or more selected storage devices.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising the following operations performed via one or more processors: identifying an expected route associated with a mobile device; identifying one or more storage devices in proximity to the expected route;
selecting one or more of the identified storage devices based on a geographical distance between the identified storage devices and the expected route; and
enabling real-time data published by or provided to the mobile device, to be stored on the one or more selected storage devices.
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, the present application is a broader version and therefore is anticipated by 11,737,007.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-47 are allowed over the prior art.
Applicant’s independent claim 30 recites a particular combination of elements, which is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art. Radermacher, Lehmann, T’Siobbel, Holsen, and a thorough search in the art disclose various aspects and features of applicant's claimed invention. However, Radermacher, Lehmann, T’Siobbel, Holsen, and a thorough search do not disclose or suggest the specific combination of identifying one or more storage devices to store data while a mobile device travels an expected route; selecting one or more of the storage devices based on at least one of a geographical distance between the storage device and the expected route, a number of links between the storage device and the expected route, a processing speed of the storage device, or a speed for communications between the storage device and the expected route; and enabling data published by or provided to the mobile device, to be stored on the one or more selected storage devices. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to arrive at applicant's claimed invention unless one was using applicant's claims and specification as a roadmap, thus using impermissible hindsight.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT whose telephone number is (571)270-1098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 May 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights