DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on June 23, 2026. Claims 1, 11, 13 and 16 have been amended, and no claims have been canceled or added. Thus, claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
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, 3 – 5, 11, 13, 14 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 – 4, 9 and 13 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,661,003 B1 (herein after “‘003 Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For instance,
instant claims 1, 5, 11 and 16 correspond to claims 1, 2 – 4, 9 and 16 – 20 of the ‘003 Patent; and
instant claims 3, 4, 13 and 14 correspond to claims 13 – 15 of the ‘003 Patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6 – 10, 12, 15 and 17 – 20 are 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
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, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached at weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. 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.
The closest prior art references are as follows:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0179976 A1 to Stroila et al. who discloses an apparatus for identification of a geographic location for sign placement. According to Stroila et al., calculating the geographic location for sign placement includes at least a communication interface, a geographic database, and a controller.
The communication interface is configured to receive probe data for a geographic area. The probe data is collected by one or more sensors associated with the location of a mobile device. The mobile device may be integrated in the vehicle, which may include assisted driving vehicles such as autonomous vehicles, highly assisted driving, and advanced driving assistance systems. Any of these assisted driving systems may be incorporated into mobile device. Alternatively, an assisted driving device may be included in the vehicle. The assisted driving device may include memory, a processor, and systems to communicate with the mobile device. The assisted driving vehicles may response to geographic data received from geographic database and the server, which may have been updated.
The geographic database includes road segments for the geographic area. The controller is configured to match at least one trip from a plurality of trips for destinations within the geographic area with at least one sign placement road segment from the geographic database and perform a comparison of the at least one sign placement road segment to the plurality of trips to generate a message including one or more destinations from the plurality of trips based on the comparison. The controller is then configured to generate an origin-destination matrix that matches the at least one sign placement road segment to the destinations. The origin-destination matrix includes a plurality of sign placement road segments including the at least one sign placement road segment. The controller then calculates a fractional frequency for the plurality of trips based on the comparison of the at least one sign placement road segment to the plurality of trips. Afterwards, the controller selects the geographic location for sign placement based on the fractional frequency.
U.S. Patent No. 10,380,694 B1 to Denaro who discloses a system for collecting vehicle crash data at a vehicle crash site. The system may include an emergency response unit that includes an emergency response vehicle and an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that is automatically deployed from the emergency response vehicle at the vehicle crash site. The UAV may be an autonomous or semi-autonomous drone, and include a processor, memory, and sensor, wherein the sensor collects vehicle crash data (such as image, video, or audio) at the crash site. The system may include a remote computing device and an insurance computing device to process the vehicle crash data collected by the UAV and/or initiate a crash insurance claim. The vehicle crash data may be used for one or more insurance-related purposes or activities, such as handling, adjusting, or generating auto or homeowners insurance claims; crash reconstruction; fault determination; damaged vehicle repair; and/or buildup identification.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights