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 .
The claims 1-19 are pending.
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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,962,472 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,962,472 B2 contain(s) every element of claims 1-19 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claim(s) of the instant application. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim. “A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001). “Claim 12 and Claim 13 are generic to the species of invention covered by claim 3 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim). This court's predecessor has held that, without a terminal disclaimer, the species claims preclude issuance of the generic application. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761, 767 (CCPA 1982); Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer, claims 12 and 13 were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.” (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Altintas et al (US Publication No. 2019/0191265 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Altintas teaches a method comprising: receiving, from a client device, information indicative of a target geographic area, wherein the client device is remote from the target geographic area (paragraph 0011-0013 disclose transmitting rules data to the first vehicle through network 105, the rules data describing geographic location within a particular geographic region); configuring a plurality of vehicles within the target geographic area to form a vehicular micro cloud based on receiving the information (paragraph 0020; 002; Fig. 5 disclose the rules data is operable to control whether the particular connected vehicle forms a micro-vehicular cloud at the geographic location; paragraph 0155 disclose a candidate geographic location is selected based on the rules data and a new micro-vehicular cloud is formed for the selected candidate geographic location); receiving resource data from the plurality of vehicles based on sensor sets of the plurality of vehicles (paragraph 0059; 0176-0184 disclose one or more vehicles forming the set of vehicles transmitting BSM or resource data from the sensor set of the vehicle (paragraph 059-0067); and transmitting the resource data to the client device (paragraph 0009; 0158 disclose multiple instances of resource data received from a plurality of vehicles and forms a resource data set. The resource data set is an aggregation of a plurality of instances of resource data received from a plurality of vehicles over a period of time such that the resource data set represents a statistically valid sample for analyzing the traffic patterns and resource availability at different geographic locations for various different times).
With respect to claim 2, Altintas teaches selecting a geographic location within the target geographic area (paragraph 0154 disclose a candidate geographic location is selected based on the rules data describing geographic location within a particular geographic region).
With respect to claim 3, Altintas teaches determining that the vehicular micro cloud has been formed at the selected geographic location prior to the receiving the information from the client device (paragraph 0020; 002; Fig. 5 disclose the rules data is operable to control whether the particular connected vehicle forms a micro-vehicular cloud at the geographic location; paragraph 0155 disclose a candidate geographic location is selected based on the rules data and a new micro-vehicular cloud is formed for the selected candidate geographic location); and based on the determination, executing a task, included in the information, using the resource data received from the vehicular micro cloud.
With respect to claim 4, Altintas teaches wherein the target geographic area is larger than the selected geographic location (paragraph 0154 disclose a candidate geographic location is selected based on the rules data describing geographic location within a particular geographic region).
With respect to claim 5, Altintas teaches wherein the target geographic area comprises at least one of: an urban area, an intersection of roadways, a landmark, a structure, a parking area, a roadway ahead of the client device (Fig. 4; paragraph 0007 disclose target geographic region and a plurality of candidate geographic locations within the target geographic region).
With respect to claim 6, Altintas teaches wherein the information defines a task to be executed by the vehicular micro cloud in the target geographic area, the method further comprising: executing the task, included in the information, using the resource data received from the plurality of vehicles (paragraph 0014-0016 disclose if a member vehicle would like to use the processing power of the micro-vehicular cloud to complete a computing task, and the member vehicle transmits a request to process digital data to the coordinator. The coordinator then determines whether the micro-vehicular cloud has adequate unused processing power to accommodate the request, and if so, the coordinator takes steps to accommodate the request).
With respect to claim 7, Altintas teaches wherein the information of the task to be executed in the vehicular micro cloud comprises at least one of: attributes of a target object to be located, a make of a target vehicle to be located, a model of a target vehicle to be located, a license plate of a target vehicle to be located, a request for risk assessment of roadway ahead of the client device, a request measurements of parking availability (paragraph 0014-0016; Fig. 7B disclose if a member vehicle would like to use the processing power of the micro-vehicular cloud to complete a computing task, and the member vehicle transmits a request to process digital data to the coordinator. The coordinator then determines whether the micro-vehicular cloud has adequate unused processing power to accommodate the request, and if so, the coordinator takes steps to accommodate the request).
With respect to claim 8, Altintas teaches detecting one or more vehicles that enter the target geographic area (paragraph 0104; 0109); and communicating with the detected one or more vehicles so that the one or more vehicles are invited to join the vehicular micro cloud (paragraph 0104; 0109 disclose increased traffic corresponds to increased computing resources because more vehicles will be eligible to join the micro-vehicular cloud 194; and decreased traffic corresponds to decreased computing resources because less vehicles will be eligible to join the micro-vehicular cloud 194).
With respect to claim 10, Altintas teaches wherein the vehicular micro cloud is one of: a stationary vehicular micro cloud and a mobile vehicular micro cloud that moves with a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles (paragraph 0109 disclose the micro-vehicular cloud 194 is “stationary”).
With respect to claim 11, Altintas teaches wherein communicating with a plurality of vehicles within the target geographic area to collectively form a vehicular micro cloud at the target geographic area comprises communicating with one or more roadside equipment (paragraph 0009; 0026 disclose the planner system as an element of roadside edge server receiving wireless messages from a set of connected vehicles including one or more instances of resource data).
With respect to claim 12, Altintas teaches wherein the client device is one of a smartphone, desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, wearable smart device, and a vehicle (Fig. 1A-B; paragraph 0011-0013 disclose set of vehicles).
The limitations of claim 13 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim
is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 14 are rejected in the analysis of claim 2 above, and the claim is
rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 15 are rejected in the analysis of claim 3 above, and the claim is
rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 16 are rejected in the analysis of claim 6 above, and the claim is
rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 17 are rejected in the analysis of claim 8 above, and the claim is
rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 18 are rejected in the analysis of claim 10 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEIKH T NDIAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-3914. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, JOON H HWANG can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/CHEIKH T NDIAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
3/7/2026