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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 15-34 of US Application No. 18/7863,626, filed on 20 August 2024, are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant canceled claims 1-14 and added claims 15-34 via preliminary amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 03 July 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 15, 22, 23, 25, and 32-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,217,102 B2 (Woodrow et al.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 15, 23, 25, 33, and 34 are disclosed by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,217,102 B2.
Regarding claims 15, 25, and 34, Woodrow discloses:
one or more processors; and one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer readable media that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations (one or more processors; and one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer readable media that collectively store instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the computing system to perform operations – claim 1), the operations comprising:
determining a first transfer hub for a ground transportation of cargo from a pick-up location to a drop-off location, wherein the first transfer hub is based on the pick-up location and the cargo (determining a first transfer hub for the cargo based at least in part on the first location and the cargo of the service request – claim 1; service request for ground transportation of cargo from a first location to a second location – claim 1; wherein the first location is a pick-up location for the cargo and wherein the second location is a drop-off location for the cargo – claim 6);
determining a second transfer hub for the cargo based at least in part on the drop-off location and the cargo (determining a second transfer hub for the cargo based at least in part on the second location and the cargo of the service request – claim 1; wherein the first location is a pick-up location for the cargo and wherein the second location is a drop-off location for the cargo – claim 6);
identifying an autonomous vehicle to provide ground transportation from the first transfer hub to the second transfer hub, wherein the autonomous vehicle is a ground-based autonomous vehicle (identifying an autonomous vehicle to provide ground transportation from the first transfer hub to the second transfer hub, wherein the autonomous vehicle is a ground-based autonomous vehicle – claim 1); and
communicating data to the autonomous vehicle to divert the autonomous vehicle to a third transfer hub based on a capacity of the second transfer hub (based at least in part on the predicted available capacity, communicating data to the autonomous vehicle to divert the autonomous vehicle to a third transfer hub – claim 1), wherein the autonomous vehicle is configured to travel to the third transfer hub based at least in part on the data communicated to the autonomous vehicle (wherein the autonomous vehicle is configured to travel to the third transfer hub based at least in part on the data communicated to the autonomous vehicle – claim 1).
Regarding claim 22 and 32, Woodrow discloses:
wherein the autonomous vehicle is configured to process the data indicative of the transportation route and execute instructions to control a motion of the autonomous vehicle to travel to the third transfer hub (communicating data to the autonomous vehicle to divert the autonomous vehicle to a third transfer hub, wherein the autonomous vehicle is configured to travel to the third transfer hub based at least in part on the data communicated to the autonomous vehicle – claim 1).
Regarding claims 23 and 33, Woodrow discloses:
wherein the operations further comprise determining the capacity the second transfer hub, wherein the capacity of the second transfer hub indicates that the second transfer hub is unable to accommodate the autonomous vehicle and the cargo at a particular drop-off time (determining a predicted available capacity of the second transfer hub for receiving the cargo at the arrival time – claim 1).
Claims 21, 24, and 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,217,102 B2 in view of Kuper et al. (US 2012/0299724 A1, “Kuper”).
Regarding claims 21 and 31, Woodrow fails to disclose but Kuper discloses location determination of a mobile target and teaches:
wherein the current location of the autonomous vehicle is determined as the autonomous vehicle travels [ ] (ENVINT tracker that operates to locate tractor-trailer 300 making a cargo delivery – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0040]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Woodrow to determine the current location of the autonomous vehicle as the vehicle travels, as taught by Kuper, because determining the location would allow for tracking the location of the tractor-trailer within the environment (Kuper at ¶ [0023]).
Regarding claims 24, Woodrow discloses:
wherein the autonomous vehicle comprises an autonomous truck (the autonomous vehicle is an autonomous truck – claim 12), [ ].
Woodrow does not disclose wherein the autonomous truck is hitched to a trailer containing the cargo.
However, Kuper discloses location determination of a mobile target and teaches:
wherein the autonomous vehicle comprises an autonomous truck, wherein the autonomous truck is hitched to a trailer containing the cargo (tractor-trailer 300 making a cargo delivery – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0040]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Woodrow to provide the autonomous truck hitched to a trailer containing the cargo, as taught by Kuper, because determining the location would allow for tracking the location of the tractor-trailer, and the cargo, within the environment (Kuper at ¶ [0023]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 and 26-31 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 AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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 Antonucci can be reached 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights