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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) steps of instructing a first vehicle to start performing a predetermined action while the first vehicle is traveling in a vehicle identification zone, starting a recognition process of recognizing an action performed by the first vehicle while the first vehicle is traveling in the vehicle identification zone and identifying the first vehicle that performs the predetermined action as the target vehicle, which may be performed practically in the human mind as a mental process by speaking to a driver of a first vehicle to start performing a predetermined action while the first vehicle is traveling in a vehicle identification zone, mentally observing an action performed by the first vehicle while the first vehicle is traveling in the vehicle identification zone and mentally making a determination that the first vehicle that performs the predetermined action is the target vehicle. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the processing circuitry and starting the recognition process using a sensor are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and sensor.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements of the processing circuitry and sensor are at best mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and sensor. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-5 also do not include elements that amount to significantly more than just the abstract idea or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 2-5 are also not patent eligible.
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/808332 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
With regards to claim 1, it is met by claim 2 of copending application 18/808332
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/338456 in view of Haag et al. (US 2025/0069497).
With regards to claim 1, most of the limitations are met by claim 1 of copending application 19/338456 except that claim 1 of the instant application specifically recites that the first vehicle is travelling in the vehicle identification zone. However, Haag et al. discloses the concept of identifying the first vehicle as the target vehicle while the first vehicle is traveling in the vehicle identification zone in order to eliminate a waiting time for vehicle identification and increase the potential flow of vehicles at the vehicle identification zone (Para. 0028 lines 1-9, 0031 lines 1-11, 0034 lines 1-10, 0055 lines 1-9, 0057 lines 1-17, “manually guided drive” “light code” “eliminates”). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify copending application 19/338456 to perform the limitations while the vehicle is travelling in a vehicle identification zone as taught by Haag et al. in order to eliminate a waiting time for vehicle identification and increase the potential flow of vehicles.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Haag et al. (US 2025/0069497).
With regards to claim 1, Haag et al. discloses a vehicle identification system for identifying a target vehicle, comprising processing circuitry (Para. 0109 lines 1-19, “processors”) configured to:
instruct a first vehicle to start performing a predetermined action for identifying the target vehicle while the first vehicle is traveling in a vehicle identification zone (Para. 0034 lines 1-10, 0055 lines 1-9, 0057 lines 1-8, “during the manually guided drive” “code” “flash the turn signals” “identification”);
start a recognition process of recognizing an action performed by the first vehicle using a sensor while the first vehicle is travelling in the vehicle identification zone (Para. 0034 lines 1-10, 0055 lines 1-9, 0057 lines 8-12, “during the manually guided drive” “monitors” “recognize the flashing light code”); and
identify the first vehicle that performs the predetermined action as the target vehicle (Para. 0057 lines 12-17, “correctly recognized or detected” “identified”).
With regards to claim 2, Haag et al. discloses the vehicle identification system according to claim 1, wherein
the predetermined action is a predetermined visible action (Para. 0057 lines 1-8, “flash the turn signals according to the code”),
the recognition process includes recognizing a visible action performed by the first vehicle using at least one camera (Para. 0057 lines 8-12, 0093 lines 1-6 and 10-16, 0094 lines 1-6, “camera”), and
the processing circuitry (Para. 0109 lines 1-19, “processors”) is further configured to execute a camera selection process of selecting the at least one camera to be able to recognize the predetermined visible action from start to finish performed by the first vehicle (Para. 0093 lines 10-16, 0119 lines 3-6, 0127 lines 8-14, “motor vehicles located or driving within the region” “sensor system” “environment sensors”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 3, Haag et al. (US 2025/0069497) discloses selecting at least one camera to recognize the predetermined visible action performed by the first vehicle, however, there is no mention of the camera selection process including temporarily selecting a temporary camera, executing a determination process of determining whether or not the temporary camera can recognize the predetermined visible action from start to finish performed by the first vehicle, and when it is determined that the temporary camera can recognize the predetermined visible action from start to finish, selecting the temporary camera as the at least one camera. Jenzowsky (US 2021/0284193) discloses the concept of checking whether the relevant cameras are in working order for monitoring, however, there is no mention of selecting the relevant cameras including temporarily selecting a temporary camera, executing a determination process of determining whether or not the temporary camera can recognize the predetermined visible action from start to finish performed by the first vehicle, and when it is determined that the temporary camera can recognize the predetermined visible action from start to finish, selecting the temporary camera as the at least one camera. Thus, while different prior arts disclose parts of the claim, none of the prior arts disclose or have reasonable motivation to combine to disclose all of the limitations of the claim as a whole.
With regards to claims 4 and 5, they are dependent on claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jenzowsky (US 2021/0284193) discloses the concept of instructing a first vehicle to start performing a predetermined action for identifying the target vehicle while the first vehicle is traveling, recognizing the predetermined action, and identifying the first vehicle that performs the predetermined action as the target vehicle.
Applicants are also directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights