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 . This office action is in response to an application filed on 05/24/2024. The applicant submits two Information Disclosure Statements dated 10/17/2024 and 05/26/2025. The applicant does not make a claim to Foreign priority. The applicant does make a claim to Domestic priority to an application filed on 05/24/2023.
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 – 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,337. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same inventive concept of functional operation of steps identifying a ship based upon data collected from various sources. The claims do not identify specific operations that are different from that are new or improved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea of a mental concept of evaluation and/or observation without significantly more. The claims are evaluated with respect to the MPEP and the 2019 Subject Matter Guidance. The 2019 Guidance used as a reference is 40.
STEP 1
The claims recite a computer implemented method for predicting a vessel identifier and a computer implemented system for predicting a vessel identifier. The claims pass Step 1 by stating one of the four statutory categories.
STEP 2A PRONG II
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below with the abstract idea identified and the pre or post solution activity identified.
Claim 1
A computer implemented method for predicting a vessel identifier, the method comprising:
- providing, at a memory, a multivariate model and a vessel identification model; (pre-solution activity)
- receiving, at a processor in communication with the memory, vessel data from one or more sources; (pre-solution activity)
- determining, at a processor, a dynamic candidate vessel corresponding to the vessel data from the one or more sources, and a candidate vessel corresponding to candidate vessel data in the vessel data; (abstract idea of mental concept) and
- predicting, at the processor, a vessel identifier output of the candidate vessel based on the dynamic candidate vessel, the multivariate model and the vessel identification model. (abstract idea of mental concept)
With respect to the MPEP under section 2106.07 the inventive concept is to identify a ship based upon mathematical and statistical models in claims 2 and 17, and ship operation performance in claims 3 and 18. With respect to MPEP section 2106.04(a)(2)(III) the operations of identifying a ship may be performed by visually observing a ship. The claims do not identify features or results of the model and data collection steps that create a specific result too complicated for the human mind to perform. In addition, the identifier is not used in any particular manner such as a display showing any information so complicated that a new or unique data collection structure is required.
With respect to the 2019 Guidance, the claims do not identify what the sources of data constitute, and the data acquired. The claims do not identify how the data from the sources are able to be associated with a particular vessel. The claims do not identify what actions or functions are used to predict the vessel identifier. Therefore, the operations may be performed in the mind through reasoning and evaluation to identify a vessel. In example 40 of the 2019 Guidance, the data used to identify, and monitor is specific, and the purpose is specific and the operations performed on the data to achieve the specific purpose. In this case, those specific features of data collected, and how it is processed are not satisfied.
Therefore, the claims fail Step 2A Prong I.
STEP 2A PRONG II
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not satisfy the requirements of MPEP section 2106.04(d)(1,2) or the 2019 Guidance. The claims do not identify new or improved operations to identify a vessel. The claims do not identify the sources of data or the operations performed in data processing to identify the vessel. With respect to the 2019 Guidance, the claims are not specific to the data used to identify, and monitor is specific, and the purpose is specific, and the operations performed on the data to achieve the specific purpose. In this case, those specific features of data collected, and how it is processed are not satisfied. Therefore, the claims fail the requirements of the MPEP and the 2019 guidance thus fail Step 2A Prong II.
STEP 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not satisfy the requirements of the MPEP section 2106.05(a-h) and the 2019 Guidance. The claims do not identify how the prediction is used. The claims do not identify a display or structure displaying the result of the prediction. With respect to the 2019 Guidance, the lack of specify in the data uses the processing does not satisfy the guidance. Therefore, the claims fail Step 2B.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER D PAIGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am - 6:00pm (mst).
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 5712703921. 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.
/TYLER D PAIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights