DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statement filed 07/28/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication(emphasis added) or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Claims
The preliminarily amended claim set filed 07/28/2023 is the claim set being considered. In the preliminarily amended claim set filed 07/28/2023:
Claim(s) 1-27 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In particular, Claim(s) 1-27 are replete with instances of the following indefinite terms: “it,” “its,” “them” and “their.” Recitation of these terms has rendered it impossible for the Examiner to establish a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention as it is not possible to discern which claim elements each of the recitations of “it,” “its,” “them” and “their” respectively refer to.
Claim(s) 1-27 is/are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim(s) 1-27 is/are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their arbitrary and non-compliant regard towards antecedent basis throughout the claim(s). The claims are so replete with violations that the Examiner cannot identify all instances of improper antecedent basis in the claims. For example, the first limitation in claim 1 includes the following violations:
“A comprehensive urban transportation system that addresses the basic problem of how to transport people and goods from place to place comprising: The distributed traffic control software that is populated in each of the plurality of the controllers to guide the plurality of the vehicles on the plurality of interconnected roads within dense urban areas under central control is used in a protected area by the vehicles of the fleet without stopping on the way from departure to the arrival station;”
Applicant is encouraged to carefully review all of claims 1-27 and to correct the instances of incorrect antecedent basis in view of the requirements set forth by MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Examiner’s Note: Due to the severity and replete nature of the Applicant’s claims in view of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) including at least those presented above, the Examiner asserts that it is not practical or possible to attempt to apply prior art rejections to the Applicant’s claimed invention as currently filed. This notion is supported by the decision of n re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), in which it was established that: “an examiner should not simply speculate about the meaning of the claim language and then enter an obviousness rejection in view of that speculative interpretation” (MPEP § 2143.03); which would be the case if the Examiner were to attempt to apply obviousness rejections to the claims as currently filed.
Further, examiner reserves the right to go final on the next action even though each non-compliant use of the above referenced terms is not explicitly cited herein, and even though no prior art rejections have been presented in the instant office action.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Nishinaga et al. (United States Patent 9,802,633 B1) discloses: ground transportation systems, and more particularly to a fixed guideway transportation system that achieves a superior ratio of benefits per cost, is lower in net present cost and thus more easily justified for lower density corridors, and can provide passenger carrying capacities appropriate for higher density corridors serviced by mass rapid transit systems today.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 11:00 am & 12:00pm - 5:00 pm.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/R.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666