DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final action is to the Election response filed 3/4/2026 and IDS filed 9/10/2024.
In the application Claims 1-15 are pending. Claim 1-9 have been elected for examination while claims 10-15 have been withdrawn. Claims 1 and 6 are the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/10/2024 has been entered, and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The Drawings filed on 5/13/2024 have been approved.
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.
6. Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Independent claims 1 and 9 respectively of U.S. 11,987,301 herein ‘301. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications teach A method for contactless traffic stop and GUI based field sobriety testing.
Claim 1 (see claim 1 of ‘301);
Claim 2 (see claim 4 of ‘301);
Claim 3 (see claim 5 of ‘301);
Claim 4 (see claim 6 of ‘301);
Claim 5 (see claim 7 of ‘301);
Claim 6 (see claim 9 of ‘301);
Claim 7 (see claim 12 of ‘301);
Claim 8 (see claim 13 of ‘301);
Claim 9 (see claim 14 of ‘301);
Current Application
1. A method for a contactless traffic stop, the method comprising: providing a civilian device associated with a civilian, said civilian device communicably coupled to a telecommunications network; providing a police device associated with a police officer, said police device communicably coupled to said telecommunications network; receiving, at said civilian device from said police device, a request to conduct a field sobriety test of said civilian; said civilian device displaying on a display of said civilian device an interactive field sobriety test graphical user interface presenting a sequence of tasks to be performed by manipulation of said displayed field sobriety test graphical user interface; said civilian manipulating said displayed field sobriety test graphical user interface to complete said presented sequence of tasks; and during said manipulating, said civilian device capturing a real-time video stream of said civilian performing said manipulating step and transmitting said video stream to said police device.
(note: Independent claim 6 recites similar language has in claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale).
‘301 Application
1. A method for electronic exchange of authenticated digital representations of documents in a contactless traffic stop, the method comprising: providing an application server communicably coupled to a telecommunication network; providing an agency server associated with an agency, said agency server communicably coupled to said telecommunication network; providing a civilian device associated with a civilian, said civilian device communicably coupled to said telecommunications network; providing a police device associated with a police officer, said police device communicably coupled to said telecommunications network; prior to a traffic stop of said civilian by said police officer: said civilian device capturing a first set of image data of at least one document issued by said agency; receiving, at said agency server via said telecommunications network, a copy of said first set of image data captured by said civilian device; said agency authenticating that said received copy of said first set of image data accurately represents said at least one document issued by said agency; receiving, at said application server from said agency server via said telecommunication network, a copy of said first set of image data authenticated by said agency, and an indication that said agency has authenticated said first set of image data; creating, at said application server, a checksum of said authenticated copy of said first set of image data received from said agency server; and receiving, at said civilian device from said application server via said telecommunications network, said authenticated copy of said first set of image data; and during a traffic stop of said civilian by said officer: receiving, at said civilian device from said police device, a request for an authenticated digital copy of said at least one civilian document; in response to said request, said police device receiving, from said civilian device via said telecommunications network, a second set of image data; receiving, at said application server from said police device via said telecommunications network, a copy of said second set of image data received by said police device; creating, at said application server, a second checksum of said second set of image data received by said application server from said police device; said application server comparing said first checksum and said second checksum; receiving, at said police device from said application server via said telecommunications network, an indication of the result of said comparing; receiving, at said civilian device from said police device, a request to conduct a field sobriety test of said civilian; said civilian device displaying on a display of said civilian device an interactive field sobriety test graphical user interface presenting a sequence of tasks to be performed by manipulation of said displayed field sobriety test graphical user interface; said civilian manipulating said displayed field sobriety test graphical user interface to complete said presented sequence of tasks; and during said manipulating, said civilian device capturing a real-time video stream of said civilian performing said manipulating step and transmitting said video stream to said police device.
The ‘301 application discloses and shares all the underlined elements and recites additional features. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have omitted elements of the ‘301 application to broaden the claim scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
7. Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claim recites “an interactive field sobriety test graphical user interface presenting a sequence of tasks to be performed by manipulation of said displayed field sobriety test graphical user interface”, however the specification fails to provide adequate written description support for the full scope of the claimed “sequence of tasks”. While the specification discloses two specific embodiments of interactive tasks via an image-matching assessment (Fig. 13 & paragraph 111) and a moving image assessment (Figs 14-15, paragraph 112), the claim language regarding “sequence of tasks” is not limited to these disclosed embodiments and is broad enough to encompass any conceivable interactive GUI-based task sequence, the full scope of which is not described in the specification. The remaining figures depicting sequential GUI interfaces in figs 7-12 are directed to vehicle registration, insurance and driver license verification workflows and do not demonstrate that the inventors were in possession of a broader genus of field sobriety assessment tasks beyond the two specific examples disclosed. Thereby the specification does not demonstrate that the inventors had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention at the time of filing as required under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has they inherit the deficiency of the Independent claim.
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.
8. Claims 1 and 6 are 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.
Claims 1 & 6 recites: “sequence of tasks”
The phrase “sequence of tasks” lacks sufficient definiteness to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the claim with reasonable certainty. The specification discloses only two specific embodiments and provides no structural, functional or otherwise limiting definition of what constitutes a qualifying “task” within the scope of the claim resulting in indefiniteness.
Claims 1 & 6 recites: “contactless traffic stop”
The claims recite a “method for a contactless traffic stop”, however the claim fails to set forth any affirmative limitation that defines or requires the traffic stop to be “contactless”. The body of the claim merely recites communication between a civilian device and a police device, display of a field sobriety test graphical user interface, manipulation of the interface and transmission of a video stream. Nowhere in the claim does it exclude physical interaction between the police office and civilian, requires the officer to remain remote from the civilian vehicle or otherwise establishes what degree of contact if any is permitted. Accordingly, it is unclear where the boundary lies between a “contactless traffic stop” and a non-contactless traffic stop, rendering the scope of the claim uncertain. Applicant is invited to amend the claim to positively recite the features that define the alleged contactless nature of the tragic stop or otherwise clarify the scope of the claim.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has they inherit the deficiency of the Independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
9. Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duale (U.S. Pub 2019/0132548, filed Oct. 31, 2017) in view of Magaletta (U.S. 11,062,584, filed Dec. 16, 2019).
Regarding Independent claims 1 and 6, Duale discloses A method for a contactless traffic stop, the method comprising:
providing a civilian device associated with a civilian, said civilian device communicably coupled to a telecommunications network (see paragraphs 47-48, discloses a “driver device 210” associated with the driver/civilian that communicates via a communication network 202 including cellular telephone networks and the Internet. The driver device includes a camera, display, microphone/speaker and transceiver for network communication);
providing a police device associated with a police officer, said police device communicably coupled to said telecommunications network (see paragraphs 47-49, discloses a law enforcement office device 220 associated with the officer, communicably coupled to the same communication network 202 via transceiver 228. The officer device includes camera, display, microphone/speaker and a ticket generator); Duale teaches a method for minimizing face-to-face interaction during traffic stops with a law enforcement device broadcasting a request to initiate a secure communication with a driver device including video conference and document exchange. Duale fails to teach a specific request between the officer and civilian for a interactive field sobriety test.
Magaletta discloses:
receiving, at said civilian device from said police device, a request to conduct a field sobriety test of said civilian (see col., 24, lines 65-67 & col. 25, lines 1-67 & col. 18, lines 20-67, discloses that Shadowtrack will send random alerts notifying the participant an “alcohol Test is Required” transmitted to the enrollee’s mobile device. The OMA section further discloses the officer can “initiate on demand…sobriety” push notifications to the enrollee device. Feature 8 discloses the ability to “send random sobriety test notifications” in multiple formats directly to the civilian device);
said civilian device displaying on a display of said civilian device an interactive field sobriety test graphical user interface presenting a sequence of tasks to be performed by manipulation of said displayed field sobriety test graphical user interface (see col., 24, lines 65-67 & col. 25, lines 1-67 & col. 18, lines 20-67, discloses that the enrollee receives a sobriety test notification on their mobile device and being required to interact with the mobile app GUI to complete the test. Feature 2 discloses the enrollee being prompted to place their face inside a designated square area on their mobile device.);
said civilian manipulating said displayed field sobriety test graphical user interface to complete said presented sequence of tasks (see col., 24, lines 65-67 & col. 25, lines 1-67 & col. 18, lines 20-67, discloses that the enrollee manipulates the Shadowtrack mobile app GUI to complete sobriety testing steps including facial recognition placement and breathalyzer initiation); and
during said manipulating, said civilian device capturing a real-time video stream of said civilian performing said manipulating step and transmitting said video stream to said police device (see col. 20, lines 1-3 & see col. 24, lines 25-50 & col. 25, discloses real-time video capture of the civilian during sobriety testing in multiple provisions. Feature 10b states “User ability to send an alert to the enrollee for live video interaction in the event of a failed Sobriety test”. The facial recognition section discloses “ability to send a request for live video interaction between the user and the enrollee”. Further the OMA section confirms the officer can initiate on demand…live video interactive sessions” with the enrollee during sobriety testing). At the time of the invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated the officer-initiated remote sobriety testing and live video interaction features of Magaletta into the virtual traffic stop system. Duale explicitly recognizes the need to assess driver impairment during a virtual traffic stop and stating in paragraph 54 that during the video conference the law enforcement officer can visually see the driver and monitor their speech to determine if the driver may be impaired.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 11 am to 7 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
5/29/2026
Prosecution Insights