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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 1/06/26.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 21-27, 29-35, and 37-40.
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.
Claim 21, 29, and 37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,16, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,935,346. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are generally broader than the patented claims..
Regarding claim 21, Claim 16 of US Patent 11,935,346 include the limitations of instant claim 21. Claim 21 is therefore a broader claim of Claim 16 of US Patent 11,935,346.
Regarding claim 29, Claim 20 of US Patent 11,935,346 include the limitations of instant claim 29 .Claim 29 is therefore a broader claim of Claim 20 of US Patent 11,935,346.
Regarding claim 37, Claim 1 of US Patent 11,935,346 include the limitations of instant claim 37. .Claim 37 is therefore a broader claim of Claim 1 of US Patent 11,935,346.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21-24,29-32, and 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill US Patent Application Publication 2012/0218078 in view of Gatt US Patent Application Publication 2007/0075246.
Regarding claims 21-24, Hill teaches a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
receiving data representing i) a location of a device ( paragraph 020), ii) an identity of a user (paragraph 013), and iii) materials associated with the user (personal information, driver’s license, paragraph 044);
determining using the location of the device, whether the device is increasing or
decreasing distance from a physical location (interrogating signal is transmitted periodically and the mobile is detected when it move closer into the interrogation range, paragraph 043-044);
in response to determining that the location of the device is decreasing in distance from
the physical location, determining, using ii) the identity of the user and whether one or more conditions attributes associated with ii) the identity of the user and iii); and in response to determining whether the one or more conditions attributes associated with ii) the identity of the user and iii) the materials associated with the user satisfy the access criteria threshold, causing a) transmission of a message to the device and b) one or more actions to occur at the physical location (paragraph 045-046). Hill is silent on teaching receiving data representing material associated with the user and determining if the material associated with the user satisfy the access criteria. Gatt in an analogous art teaches receiving data representing material associated with the user and determining if the material associated with the user satisfy the access criteria (paragraph 06-09). Gatt teaches the one or more conditions attributes
associated with ii) the identity of the user and iii) the materials associated with the user comprise:
whether the materials associated with the user are permitted transport through the
physical location (paragraph 06-09,037). Gatt teaches the one or more conditions attributes associated with ii) the identity of the user and iii) the materials associated with the user comprises: whether the materials associated with the user require additional inspection prior to transport through the physical location (paragraph 031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hill as disclosed by Gatt because such modification represent an improvement over the system by Hill by increasing the security at the border crossing by detecting and preventing unauthorized materials from crossing a border.
Regarding claims 29-32, Hill teaches one or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
receiving data representing i) a location of a device ( paragraph 020), ii) an identity of a user (paragraph 013), and iii) materials associated with the user (personal information, driver’s license, paragraph 044);
determining using the location of the device, whether the device is increasing or
decreasing distance from a physical location (interrogating signal is transmitted periodically and the mobile is detected when it move closer into the interrogation range, paragraph 043-044);
in response to determining that the location of the device is decreasing in distance from
the physical location, determining, using ii) the identity of the user and whether one or more conditions attributes associated with ii) the identity of the user and iii); and in response to determining whether the one or more conditions attributes associated with ii) the identity of the user and iii) the materials associated with the user satisfy the access criteria threshold, causing a) transmission of a message to the device and b) one or more actions to occur at the physical location (paragraph 045-046). Hill teaches the one or more conditions attributes associated with ii) the identity of the user and iii) the materials associated with the user comprise:
whether the identity of the user is permitted transport through the physical location (paragraph 013-014,019,046). Hill is silent on teaching receiving data representing material associated with the user and determining if the material associated with the user satisfy the access criteria. Gatt in an analogous art teaches receiving data representing material associated with the user and determining if the material associated with the user satisfy the access criteria (paragraph 06-09). Gatt teaches the one or more conditions attributes
associated with ii) the identity of the user and iii) the materials associated with the user comprise:
whether the materials associated with the user are permitted transport through the
physical location (paragraph 06-09,037). Gatt teaches the one or more conditions attributes associated with ii) the identity of the user and iii) the materials associated with the user comprises: whether the materials associated with the user require additional inspection prior to transport through the physical location (paragraph 031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hill as disclosed by Gatt because such modification represent an improvement over the system by Hill by increasing the security at the border crossing by detecting and preventing unauthorized materials from crossing a border.
Regarding claims 37-40, Hill teaches a computer implemented method comprising:
receiving data representing i) a location of a device ( paragraph 020), ii) an identity of a user (paragraph 013), and iii) materials associated with the user (personal information, driver’s license, paragraph 044);
determining using the location of the device, whether the device is increasing or
decreasing distance from a physical location (interrogating signal is transmitted periodically and the mobile is detected when it move closer into the interrogation range, paragraph 043-044);
in response to determining that the location of the device is decreasing in distance from
the physical location, determining, using ii) the identity of the user and whether one or more conditions attributes associated with ii) the identity of the user and iii); and in response to determining whether the one or more conditions attributes associated with ii) the identity of the user and iii) the materials associated with the user satisfy the access criteria threshold, causing a) transmission of a message to the device and b) one or more actions to occur at the physical location (paragraph 045-046). Hill is silent on teaching receiving data representing material associated with the user and determining if the material associated with the user satisfy the access criteria. Gatt in an analogous art teaches receiving data representing material associated with the user and determining if the material associated with the user satisfy the access criteria (paragraph 06-09). Gatt teaches the one or more conditions attributes
associated with ii) the identity of the user and iii) the materials associated with the user comprise:
whether the materials associated with the user are permitted transport through the
physical location (paragraph 06-09,037). Gatt teaches the one or more conditions attributes associated with ii) the identity of the user and iii) the materials associated with the user comprises: whether the materials associated with the user require additional inspection prior to transport through the physical location (paragraph 031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hill as disclosed by Gatt because such modification represent an improvement over the system by Hill by increasing the security at the border crossing by detecting and preventing unauthorized materials from crossing a border.
Claim(s) 25-27 and 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill US Patent Application Publication 2012/0218078 in view of Gatt US Patent Application Publication 2007/0075246 and further in view of McIntire et al. US Patent Application Publication 20150088775.
Regarding claim 25-27, Hill teaches in response to determining that the one or more conditions attributes associated with ii) the identity of the user and iii) the materials associated with the user satisfy the access criteria threshold, causing a) transmission of a message to the device (paragraph 046) and b) one or more actions to occur at the physical location: wherein the transmission of the message to the device comprises transmitting an approval message (paragraph 046). Hill is silent on teaching the one or more actions comprises opening a barrier. McIntire et al. teaches the one or more actions comprises opening a barrier (paragraph 092). McIntire teaches when the identity of the user and iii) the materials associated with the user does not satisfy the access criteria threshold, causing a) transmission of a message to the device and b) one or more actions to occur at the physical location: wherein the transmission of the message to the device comprises transmitting a denial message; and wherein the one or more actions comprises maintaining a barrier closed (paragraph 099). McIntire teaches transmission of a message to the device and b) one or more actions to occur at the physical location: wherein the transmission of the message to the device comprises transmitting a stop-for-verification message; and wherein the one or more actions comprises altering a barrier to route traffic to an inspection station (paragraph 099).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hill in view of Gatt as disclosed by McIntire et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system Hill in view of Gatt by increasing the security at the border crossing by detecting and preventing unauthorized materials from crossing a border.
Regarding claims 33-35, Hill teaches in response to determining that the one or more conditions attributes associated with ii) the identity of the user and iii) the materials associated with the user satisfy the access criteria threshold, causing a) transmission of a message to the device (paragraph 046) and b) one or more actions to occur at the physical location: wherein the transmission of the message to the device comprises transmitting an approval message (paragraph 046). Hill is silent on teaching the one or more actions comprises opening a barrier. McIntire et al. teaches the one or more actions comprises opening a barrier (paragraph 092). McIntire teaches when the identity of the user and iii) the materials associated with the user does not satisfy the access criteria threshold, causing a) transmission of a message to the device and b) one or more actions to occur at the physical location: wherein the transmission of the message to the device comprises transmitting a denial message; and wherein the one or more actions comprises maintaining a barrier closed (paragraph 099). McIntire teaches transmission of a message to the device and b) one or more actions to occur at the physical location: wherein the transmission of the message to the device comprises transmitting a stop-for-verification message; and wherein the one or more actions comprises altering a barrier to route traffic to an inspection station (paragraph 099).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hill in view of Gatt as disclosed by McIntire et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system Hill in view of Gatt by increasing the security at the border crossing by detecting and preventing unauthorized materials from crossing a border.
Claim(s) 28 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill US Patent Application Publication 2012/0218078 in view of Gatt US Patent Application Publication 2007/0075246 and further in view of Dippenaar US Patent 9491183.
Regarding claim 28, Hill is silent on teaching determining using i) the location of the device whether the device is increasing or decreasing distance from the physical location comprises: determining whether the location of the device has moved from a first location boundary to a second location boundary. Dippenaar in an analogous art teaches the location of the device whether the device is increasing or decreasing distance from the physical location comprises: determining whether the location of the device has moved from a first location boundary to a second location boundary (col. 3 lines 56-col. 4 line 16, col. 4 lines 55-63, col. 13 lines 37-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hill in view of Gatt as disclosed by Dippenaar because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Hill in view of Gatt by providing a more efficient and reliable means of determining the geographic boundary relating to the location and position of the traveler.
Regarding claim 36, Hill is silent on teaching determining using i) the location of the device whether the device is increasing or decreasing distance from the physical location comprises: determining whether the location of the device has moved from a first location boundary to a second location boundary. Dippenaar in an analogous art teaches the location of the device whether the device is increasing or decreasing distance from the physical location comprises: determining whether the location of the device has moved from a first location boundary to a second location boundary (col. 3 lines 56-col. 4 line 16, col. 4 lines 55-63, col. 13 lines 37-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hill in view of Gatt as disclosed by Dippenaar because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Hill in view of Gatt by providing a more efficient and reliable means of determining the geographic boundary relating to the location and position of the traveler.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, EST.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights