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
Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant has elected to canceled claims 3, 5, and 18. Subsequently, these claims are no longer being considered.
Regarding the rejection of claim 18 based on 35 USC § 101, the Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claim 18 which therefore renders the prior rejection based on 35 USC § 101 moot.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-20 under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Slattery et al. (US 20240067194 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Slattery], the Applicant has elected to amend the claims 1 and 2 and cancel claims 3, 5, and 18. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection in the previous Office Action based on 35 USC § 102 is rendered moot. After consideration of the amended limitations the Examiner has found allowable subject matter within the independent claims.
Therefore, these arguments are considered persuasive and the rejection of claims 1-2, 6-8, 10-17, and 19-20 under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) are hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claims 4 and 9 under USC § 103, Applicant argues the dependent claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency.
This argument is persuasive for the reasons as given above and the rejections of claims 4 and 9 under USC § 103 are hereby withdrawn.
Examiner acknowledges the changes made regarding non-statutory double patenting rejection to claims 1 and 2 found in Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9. However, the Examiner has considered the amended claim limitations and submits that the amendments made in the instant application are also replicated in the reference application as discussed in detail below.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12-17, and 19-20 under non-statutory double patenting is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 20 is 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation when executed by the computer system of claim 1, cause the computer system to perform the method of claim 2 such that it improperly claims dependency to more than one independent claim (i.e., claims 1 and 2) which renders the claim indefinite as it is difficult for the Examiner to clearly identify what the Applicant deems as their invention.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12-17, and 19-20 of the instant application (application no.18/394,593 US Publication No. 20240227819 A1) are provisionally rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12-17, and 19-20 of co-pending application No. 18/396,957 ( US Publication No. 20240227856 A1 hereinafter referred to as “reference application”), which was filed concurrently with the instant application on 12/27/2023. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference would amount to an obvious modification as explained below.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The table below uses claim 2 as representative of the claims of the instant application and the corresponding claim of reference application side-by-side for comparison. All matching elements of the claim limitations appear in bold while non-matching elements of the claim limitations are not bolded.
Instant Application 18/394,593, claim2
Reference Application 18/396,957, claim 2
A computer-implemented method comprising a processor device configured to: receive a deactivation request to deactivate a heavy-duty vehicle;
A computer-implemented method comprising a processor device configured to: receive a deactivation request to deactivate a heavy-duty vehicle;
in response to said receiving, determine a controlled partial deactivation instruction of at least one subsystem of the heavy-duty vehicle, wherein the controlled partial deactivation instruction is determined by an autonomous model; and
in response to said receiving, determine a controlled partial deactivation instruction of at least one subsystem of the heavy-duty vehicle, wherein the controlled partial deactivation instruction is determined by an autonomous model; and
controlling, by the processor device, the heavy-duty vehicle to execute the controlled partial deactivation instruction such that the heavy-duty vehicle is at least partially deactivated either immediately, or after a delay, as determined by the controlled partial deactivation instruction, wherein the autonomous model is configured to:
controlling, by the processor device, the heavy-duty vehicle to execute the controlled partial deactivation instruction such that the heavy-duty vehicle is at least partially deactivated either immediately, or after a delay, as determined by the controlled partial deactivation instruction, wherein the autonomous model is configured to:
receive input data, said input data comprising: historical usage pattern of the heavy-duty vehicle, the historical usage pattern comprising information of deactivation events and activation events of the heavy-duty vehicle having historically occurred at reference locations;
receive input data, said input data comprising: historical usage pattern of the heavy-duty vehicle, the historical usage pattern comprising information of deactivation events and activation events of the heavy-duty vehicle having historically occurred at reference time frames;
usage data of the heavy-duty vehicle with reference to said reference locations, and the deactivation request, process the input data, wherein the process includes calculating a cost function, wherein said deactivation and activation events are associated with positive costs, wherein time periods between a deactivation event and a subsequent activation event among said deactivation events and activation events having historically occurred are associated with negative costs, and output the controlled partial deactivation instruction as a result of said processing of the input data.
usage data of the heavy-duty vehicle with reference to said reference time frames, and the deactivation request, process the input data, wherein the process includes calculating a cost function, wherein said deactivation and activation events are associated with positive costs, wherein time periods between a deactivation event and a subsequent activation event among said deactivation events and activation events having historically occurred are associated with negative costs, and output the controlled partial deactivation instruction as a result of said processing of the input data.
As illustrated in the table above, all matching elements of the claim limitations appear in bold while non-matching elements of the claim limitations are not bolded.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions are directed to a computer-implemented method of an autonomous model that controlling the heavy-duty vehicle to execute the controlled partial deactivation instruction. The difference between the two claim limitations corresponds to the reference application being directed to time frames and the instant application being directed to locations. However, in Applicant’s Specification (instant application [0051] last 2-sentences with intentional emphasis) where “The skilled person will appreciate other possible schemes of defining the reference locations 33 depending on the deactivation/ activation activity of the vehicle 10. “Deactivation/activation activity” is to be interpreted as the number of deactivation or activations occurring over a given time period.” Also, Fig. 4 (see below) of both applications correspond to a planned route which necessarily provides correlation of time periods (e.g., time frames) with location (i.e., a bus or delivery route needs both a time frame and location to run successfully) and that this would be appreciated by one of ordinary skill.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the computer-implemented method for deactivation control with the teachings of the reference application and incorporate time frames as a scheme of defining locations as the Applicant deems as a proper interpretation as disclosed in the instant application’s Specification in [0051].
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
757
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
743
489
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO Form-892 for references cited regarding this application.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661