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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant's communication filed on 02/03/2025. In virtue of this communication, claims 52-72 filed on 02/03/2025 are currently pending in the instant application.
Claims 1-51 has been cancelled with a preliminary amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information Disclosure statement (IDS) form PTO-1449, filed on 07/18/2025, and three IDS forms filed on 11/08/2024, are in compliance with the provisions of CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 09/20/2024 have been reviewed by Examiner and they are acceptable.
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.
Instant independent claims 52(system), 64(method), 72(system) are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding similar independent claims 1(system), 14(method), of parent application US Patent No. 11,188776. The conflicting claims are not identical because the embodiments of co-owned claims 1 and 14 omit steps not explicitly required by the embodiment of instant claims. However, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because:
· Instant claims 52, 64, and 72 and co-owned claims 1and 14 recite common subject matter;
· Instant claims 52, 64, and 72, which recite the open ended transitional phrase “comprising,” does not preclude the difference in steps recited by co-owned claims 1and 14, and
· the elements of instant claims 52, 64, and 72 are obvious over claims 1 and 14, and completely anticipate the subject matter of instant claim, and “anticipation is the epitome of obviousness” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In re Fracalossi, 681F.2d 792, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982).
Instant independent claims 52(system), 64(method), 72(system) are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding similar independent claims 1(system), 12(method), of parent application US Patent No. 12,067743. The conflicting claims are not identical because the embodiments of co-owned claims 1 and 14 omit steps not explicitly required by the embodiment of instant claims. However, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because:
· Instant claims 52, 64, and 72 and co-owned claims 1and 12 recite common subject matter;
· Instant claims 52, 64, and 72, which recite the open ended transitional phrase “comprising,” does not preclude the difference in steps recited by co-owned claims 1 and 12, and
· the elements of instant claims 52, 64, and 72 are obvious over co-owned claims 1 and 12, and completely anticipate the subject matter of instant claim, and “anticipation is the epitome of obviousness” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In re Fracalossi, 681F.2d 792, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982).
Instant independent claims 52(system), 64(method), 72(system) are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding similar independent claims 1(system), 17(method), of parent application US Patent No. 12,125234. The conflicting claims are not identical because the embodiments of co-owned claims 1 and 17 omit steps not explicitly required by the embodiment of instant claims. However, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because:
· Instant claims 52, 64, and 72 and co-owned claims 1and 17 recite common subject matter;
· Instant claims 52, 64, and 72, which recite the open ended transitional phrase “comprising,” does not preclude the difference in steps recited by co-owned claims 1and 17, and
· the elements of instant claims 52, 64, and 72 are obvious over claims 1 and 14, and completely anticipate the subject matter of instant claim, and “anticipation is the epitome of obviousness” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In re Fracalossi, 681F.2d 792, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 52-72 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 52, 64, and 72 are rejected because the limitation “a location of the automated license plate recognition system” and “relative position of the remote vehicle relative to the automated license plate recognition system” fail to identify the physical references point of the automated license plate recognition system. The discloses system may include spatially separated components, including first and second image acquisition devices, a positioning unit antenna, a processing unit, memory, and an external computing device. It is unclear whether the claims location and relative position are references to one of the image acquisition devices, a point between the image acquisition devices, the positioning unit antenna, the patrol vehicle, or another component. Because the selected reference point affects the resulting relative and geographical coordinate, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
The remaining dependent claims 53-63, 65-71 have been analyzed and are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies noted above and therefore inherit 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph issues of the independent claims.
Claim Interpretation: regarding claims 52, 64, and 72, the phrase “remote vehicle” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as a vehicle spatially separated from automated license plate recognition system, depicted in the first and second images, which relative position and geographical location are being determined. The automated license plate recognition system is mounted on a host or patrol vehicle and the remote vehicle is the separated observed vehicle and not the host or patrol vehicle.
Examiner’s Comments
The claim rejections under 112 (b) listed above, make the claims incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonable search of the prior art by the Examiner. Because the ambiguity identified above creates materially different potential scopes of claims that cannot be resolved without considerable speculation, no prior art rejection is made at this time.
Applicant is required to submit an amendment which clarifies the disclosure so that the examiner may make a proper comparison of the invention with the prior art.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30-6:30.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights