DETAILED ACTION
This final action is in reply to the response filed 19 March 2026, which was in response to the non-final action dated 19 December 2025.
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 .
Reply to Arguments
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 2 and 14 have been amended. The specification has also been amended.
The examiner accepts applicant’s amended specification.
With regard to the non-statutory double patenting rejection of claims 1, 11 and 17 (pgs. 2-4, Action), no terminal disclaimer has been filed. Accordingly, the double patenting rejection is maintained, as discussed below.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 11 and 17 (pgs. 4-17, Action), after additional searching and consideration, the examiner finds applicant’s arguments (pgs. 8-10, Reply), persuasive. Accordingly, claims 1, 11 and 17 are allowable, as discussed below, subject to the filing of a terminal disclaimer. Similarly dependent claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are allowable based upon their dependence on independent claims 1, 11 and 17.
Applicant’s discussion with regard to claim 4 (pg. 7, Reply) is moot based on the indication of allowability.
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, 11 and 17 rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,993,2811.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention of the current case would be invented with the claim limitations from the issued patent. The claims are not patentably distinct and would not result in two separate inventions. The intention of the current application would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention because the claim limitations of the instant case would not be distinguished over the claims of the issued patent and when priorly construed, define the same invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
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).
Claims 1, 11 and 17 are allowed, subject to the filing of the terminal disclaimer. Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are allowed based upon their dependence upon independent claims 1, 11 and 17.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance of independent claims 1, 11 and 17.
The closest prior art, U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0299290 to Slavin et al. (Hereafter Slavin), teaches:
A lane-level vehicle routing and navigation apparatus includes a simulation module that performs microsimulation of individual vehicles in a traffic stream, and a lane-level optimizer that evaluates conditions along the candidate paths from an origin to a destination as determined by the simulation module, and determines recommended lane-level maneuvers along the candidate paths. A link-level optimizer may determine the candidate paths based on link travel times determined by the simulation module. The simulation may be based on real-time traffic condition data. Recommended candidate paths may be provided to delivery or service or emergency response vehicles, or used for evacuation planning, or to route vehicles such as garbage or postal trucks, or snowplows. Corresponding methods also may be used for traffic planning and management, including determining, based on microsimulation, at least one of (a) altered road geometry, (b) altered traffic signal settings, such as traffic signal timing, or (c) road pricing.
Further, U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0364305 to Rizk et al. (hereafter Rizk), teaches:
A map database stores data describing a set of connected roadways, each having one or more lanes. A navigation system selects a route for an autonomous vehicle (AV) by identifying a set of candidate lanes for routing the AV in the map database and retrieving at least one parameter of each candidate lane from the map database. The navigation system determines a performance metric for each of the candidate lanes, the performance metric for a given candidate lane based on the retrieved at least one parameter of the given candidate lane. The navigation system selects a candidate lane for routing the AV based at least in part on the determined performance metrics.
Still further, U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0271050 to Niki et al. (hereafter Niki), teaches:
Information for generating a target speed pattern is computed from information acquired from various sensors and a running mode input switch, so as to generate the target speed pattern (S16). A process for determining whether to form a vehicle group or not calculates the difference between the target vehicle pattern of the own vehicle and a target speed pattern of another vehicle or vehicle group obtained through inter-vehicle communication, so as to determine whether to form the vehicle group or not. This can determine whether to run solo or form a vehicle group according to a driver's demand.
In regard to independent claims 1, 11 and 17, Slavin, Rizk and Niki, either alone or in combination with other art of record, fail to teach or render obvious, in the context of the remaining claims:
deriving a policy from a decision model using the state transition function,
wherein the policy directs vehicle movement of a vehicle between neighboring lane segments based on a cost function integrating a user preference with respect to at least two objectives and a slack time for alternative routes,
wherein the slack time indicates an allowable deviation in travel time relative to the user preference ... .
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4;30 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 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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/PATRICK M BRADY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights