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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 in view of Coleman (US 2013/0046559).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 discloses all the limitations in claim 1 of the present invention, but does not disclose generating a first epoch score based at least in part upon first telematics data from a first epoch associated with the user; generating a third epoch score based at least in part upon the first epoch score and the second epoch score. Coleman teaches the use of generating a first epoch score based at least in part upon first telematics data from a first epoch associated with a user (S402, S404, first trip, paragraph 55, p. 8, p. 61); generating a third epoch score based at least in part upon the first epoch score and a second epoch score ( third trip, p. 54, p. 58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include generating a first epoch score based at least in part upon first telematics data from a first epoch associated with the user; generating a third epoch score based at least in part upon the first epoch score and the second epoch score to modify the claimed invention of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 as taught by Coleman for the purpose of effectively generating a hybrid epoch score and driver feedback for a user.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 recites all the limitations in claim 2 of the present invention.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 (modified by Coleman) recites all the limitations in claim 3 of the present invention.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 (modified by Coleman) recites all the limitations in claim 4 of the present invention.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 (modified by Coleman) recites all the limitations in claim 5 of the present invention.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 (modified by Coleman) recites all the limitations in claim 6 of the present invention.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 (modified by Coleman) recites all the limitations in claim 7 of the present invention.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 (modified by Coleman) recites all the limitations in claim 8 of the present invention.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 (modified by Coleman) recites all the limitations in claim 9 of the present invention.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 (modified by Coleman) recites all the limitations in claim 10 of the present invention.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 (modified by Coleman) recites all the limitations in claim 11 of the present invention.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 (modified by Coleman) recites all the limitations in claim 12 of the present invention.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 discloses all the limitations in claim 13 of the present invention, but does not disclose generating a first epoch score based at least in part upon first telematics data from a first epoch associated with the user; generating a third epoch score based at least in part upon the first epoch score and the second epoch score. Coleman teaches the use of generating a first epoch score based at least in part upon first telematics data from a first epoch associated with a user (S402, S404, first trip, paragraph 55, p. 8, p. 61); generating a third epoch score based at least in part upon the first epoch score and a second epoch score ( third trip, p. 54, p. 58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include generating a first epoch score based at least in part upon first telematics data from a first epoch associated with the user; generating a third epoch score based at least in part upon the first epoch score and the second epoch score to modify the claimed invention of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 as taught by Coleman for the purpose of effectively generating a hybrid epoch score and driver feedback for a user.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 (modified by Coleman) recites all the limitations in claim 14 of the present invention.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 (modified by Coleman) recites all the limitations in claim 15 of the present invention.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 (modified by Coleman) recites all the limitations in claim 16 of the present invention.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 discloses all the limitations in claim 13 of the present invention, but does not disclose generating a first epoch score based at least in part upon first telematics data from a first epoch associated with the user; generating a third epoch score based at least in part upon the first epoch score and the second epoch score. Coleman teaches the use of generating a first epoch score based at least in part upon first telematics data from a first epoch associated with a user (S402, S404, first trip, paragraph 55, p. 8, p. 61); generating a third epoch score based at least in part upon the first epoch score and a second epoch score ( third trip, p. 54, p. 58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include generating a first epoch score based at least in part upon first telematics data from a first epoch associated with the user; generating a third epoch score based at least in part upon the first epoch score and the second epoch score to modify the claimed invention of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 as taught by Coleman for the purpose of effectively generating a hybrid epoch score and driver feedback for a user.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 (modified by Coleman) recites all the limitations in claim 18 of the present invention.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 (modified by Coleman) recites all the limitations in claim 19 of the present invention.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,287 (modified by Coleman) recites all the limitations in claim 20 of the present invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 11, 2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 15-17, filed March 11, 2026, with respect to claims 1-2, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-2, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANH V LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2970. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ANH V LA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
ANH V. LA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
Al
May 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights