Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/801,096

ROUTE RISK MITIGATION

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Aug 12, 2024
Examiner
KHATIB, RAMI
Art Unit
3669
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Arity International Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
665 granted / 858 resolved
+25.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
908
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.8%
-23.2% vs TC avg
§103
35.6%
-4.4% vs TC avg
§102
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
§112
24.7%
-15.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 858 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,060,062 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the current application appear to be a broader version of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,060,062 B2. For example, claims 1, 11, and 20 of the current application recite the same limitations of claims 1, 11, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,060,062 B2 except for the limitation “receiving, by an autonomous driving system of an autonomous vehicle, vehicle travel information corresponding to driving conditions being experienced by the autonomous vehicle during travel to a destination, wherein the vehicle travel information comprises sensor information received from one or more sensors associated with the autonomous driving system” (see table below for comparison of claims 1. The same comparison applies to claims 11 and 20 respectively). Claims 2-4 and 12-14 of the current application are identical to claims 2-4 and 12-14 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,060,062 B2. Claims 5-7 and 15-17 of the current application are identical to claims 7-9 and 16-18 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,060,062 B2. Claims 8-9, 10, 18 and 19 of the current application are identical to claims 5-6, 10, 15 and 19 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,060,062 B2. Claim 1 of 18/801,096 Claim 1 of US 12,060,062 B2 A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by an autonomous driving system of an autonomous vehicle, travel route information identifying a first travel route for the autonomous vehicle to a destination and a second travel route for the autonomous vehicle to the destination; determining, by the autonomous driving system of the autonomous vehicle, a first route risk value for the first travel route and a second route risk value for the second travel route; selecting, by the autonomous driving system of the autonomous vehicle, a selected travel route according to the first route risk value and the second route risk value; and receiving, by the autonomous driving system of the autonomous vehicle, historical accident information, wherein the historical accident information is associated with the selected travel route; analyzing the historical accident information associated with vehicles engaged in autonomous driving over the selected travel route to identify at least one accident of a plurality of accidents that have historically occurred over the selected travel route; validating the at least one accident occurred within a predetermined time relevancy threshold, wherein validating includes generating at least one validated accident; and adjusting at least one driving action planned for operating the autonomous vehicle over the selected travel route according to the at least one validated accident. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by an autonomous driving system of an autonomous vehicle, vehicle travel information corresponding to driving conditions being experienced by the autonomous vehicle during travel to a destination, wherein the vehicle travel information comprises sensor information received from one or more sensors associated with the autonomous driving system; receiving, by the autonomous driving system of the autonomous vehicle, travel route information identifying a first travel route for the autonomous vehicle to the destination and a second travel route for the autonomous vehicle to the destination; determining, by the autonomous driving system of the autonomous vehicle, a first route risk value for the first travel route and a second route risk value for the second travel route; selecting, by the autonomous driving system of the autonomous vehicle, a selected travel route according to the first route risk value and the second route risk value; and receiving, by the autonomous driving system of the autonomous vehicle, historical accident information, wherein the historical accident information is associated with the selected travel route; analyzing the historical accident information associated with vehicles engaged in autonomous driving over the selected travel route to identify at least one accident of a plurality of accidents that have historically occurred over the selected travel route; validating the at least one accident occurred within a predetermined time relevancy threshold, wherein validating includes generating at least one validated accident; and adjusting at least one driving action planned for operating the autonomous vehicle over the selected travel route according to the at least one validated accident. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Boies et al US 2002/0120396 A1 discloses an apparatus, system, method and computer program product for determining optimum routing of vehicles based on historical information as well as user preferences and current travel conditions. Hobbs et al US 9,188,985 B1 discloses generating and providing route options for an autonomous vehicle. Minami et al US 2005/0096836 A1 discloses an operation management system is provided, which includes a database that accumulates operation information, including a fuel consumption amount, that is gathered from a running vehicle through a network; and a management device that sends the gathered operation information and the operation information accumulated in the database to a client computer through the network. Phelan et al US 2004/0225557 A1 discloses evaluating the excess speed events in relation to the trip duration, and recording the evaluation of the speed events, the trip duration and trip identifier. Miller et al US 7,546,206 B1 discloses providing a suggested transportation route includes receiving a set of operational parameters and weather data. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm. 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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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. /RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 12, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596013
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CREATING A DIGITAL MAP AND FOR OPERATING AN AUTOMATED VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594830
ELECTRIC WORK VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597302
AIR PRESSURE LIMITING VALVE DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576851
VEHICLE PASS MANEUVERING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12560445
METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND VEHICLES FOR DYNAMIC ROUTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+13.3%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 858 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month