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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III (claims 17-20) in the reply filed on 6/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Currently, claims 17-20 and newly filed 21-36 are pending and examined.
Claims 1-16 have been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/15/2026 was filed after the mailing is being considered by the examiner. Note, there is a duplicated copy of another IDS also filed on 1/15/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 1, par. [0001], line 3; after “PREMISES” should be added -- now U.S. Patent No. 12,270,241 --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,270,241; over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,838. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all structures of the instant are substantially encompassed with the patented claims.
Claims 17-36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/820,587; over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/820,602; over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/820,629; over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/820,647; over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/820,659; over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/820,665. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all structures of the instant claims are substantially encompassed with the copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US No. 11,443,396 to Morris.
Morris discloses a computer-implemented method for checking-in a vehicle at a facility, the computer implemented method comprising: a communication interface 220; a memory (col. 34, lines 22-23) for storing information; and a processor 212; determining whether a vehicle 22 has arrived at a facility 110 in response to the communication interface 220 receiving a check-in communication from a user device 50; determining whether the vehicle 22 is authorized to access the facility 110; causing the communication interface 220 to communicate a control command to a movable barrier operator 32 of the facility 110 to open a movable barrier 19 associated with the movable barrier operator 32 based on determining whether the vehicle 22 has arrived at the facility 110 and based on determining whether the vehicle 22 is authorized to access the facility 110; and updating a digital distributed ledger system (col. 5, line 29) stored at the remote server computer 200 to indicate arrival of the vehicle at the facility; receiving, at a remote server computer 200, a check-in communication transmitted from a user device 26, the check-in communication indicative of a vehicle arriving at a facility 110 (Fig. 1); authorizing, by the remote server computer 200, the vehicle 22 to access the facility 110 based at least in part on a check-in identifier included in the check-in communication (Fig. 3), the check-in identifier including identifying information pertaining to the user device 26, the vehicle 22, a freight transported by the vehicle 22, or a combination thereof, wherein authorizing the vehicle 22 to access the facility 110 comprises: comparing the identifying information contained in the check-in communication to a schedule stored in a memory (col. 34, lines 22-23), the schedule (col. 9, line 48) including a particular time or range of times that the vehicle 22 is authorized to access the facility 110; and determining the vehicle 22 is authorized to access the facility 110 based on the comparing; and communicating, from the remote server computer 200 to a first movable barrier operator 32 at a location of the vehicle 22, a control command 28 (col. 6, line 27) in response to authorizing the vehicle 22; further comprising transmitting, by the remote server computer 200, a first reporting notification to a computing device 50 at the facility 110 in response to receiving the check-in communication (Fig. 3); further comprising transmitting, by the remote server computer 200, a second reporting notification to the computing device 50 in response to the vehicle 22 arriving at the location 110; further comprising: causing, by the first movable barrier operator 32 in response to receiving the control command 28, a first movable barrier 19 associated with the first movable barrier operator 32 to open; communicating, from the remote server computer 200, a destination identification to the user device 26, the destination identification representative of a particular location to direct the vehicle 22; further comprising: receiving, at the remote server computer 200, confirmation of passage of the vehicle 22 through the open first movable barrier 19; communicating, from the remote server computer 200, a control command 28 to a second movable barrier operator (i.e. at 100, wherein 112A points to) disposed at the particular location in response to receiving the confirmation, wherein the particular location corresponds to a loading dock 110A and the second movable barrier operator corresponding to a dock door operator (see Fig. 1), and wherein the control command 28 causes the dock door operator to open; wherein the communication from the remote server computer 200 to the user device 26 includes a time or a range of times (col. 7, line54) that the vehicle 22 is authorized to access the facility 110; further comprising: recording, at a memory (col. 34, lines 27-28) of the remote server computer 200, an entrance time corresponding to the first movable barrier operator 32 opening the first movable barrier 19; notifying, by the remote server computer 200, a management computer system 50 of the facility 110 that the vehicle 22 entered the first movable barrier operator 32; and assigning, by the management computer system, staff to service the vehicle 22; further comprising: recording, at the memory (col. 34, lines 27-28) of the remote server computer 200, at least two of an open time corresponding to a second movable barrier operator opening a second movable barrier (see Fig. 1), a close time corresponding to the second movable barrier operator closing the second movable barrier, and a departure time corresponding to the first movable barrier operator opening the first movable barrier; and determining, by the remote server computer 200, a facility efficiency based on a difference between at least two of the entrance time, open time, close time, or departure time (col. 29, last line; col. 30, lines 1-8).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached PTO-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to CHI Q. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7AM-5PM or email: chi.nguyen@uspto.gov. If attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197.
/CHI Q NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
PNG
media_image1.png
323
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prosecution Insights