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 responsive to claims filed on September 30, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
The instant application is a continuation of application No. 18/075684, now U.S. Patent No. 12,126,587.
Authorization for Internet Communication
To expedite prosecution, filing a written authorization for internet communication is recommended. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate using email to schedule interviews and/or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to email communications. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended to add semicolon “;” at the end of line 5 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
With the exception to the non-statutory double patenting rejection, claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art of record. For reasons of allowance, see pages 8-10 of Applicant's arguments/remarks of the parent application No.17/375,227 filed on April 1, 2022.
35 USC § 101 - Consideration
Claim 18 was considered for 35 USC 101 as directed to a product including machine-readable media, which may be a physical hardware component or software per se, depending on the instant application disclosure support. However, upon further review of the instant application disclosure (see specification, Paragraph [0038]) & evaluation of the claim language, said claim further recites “A product including machine-readable media other than transitory signal”. It is also noted that the claim scope has been interpreted to be limited to machine-readable media that are not transitory. Therefore, claim 18 is believed to be falling within a statutory class of invention as required under 35 USC 101.
[038] Accordingly, the circuitry may store or access instructions for execution, or may implement its functionality in hardware alone. The instructions may be stored in a tangible storage medium that is other than a transitory signal, such as a flash memory, a Random Access Memory (RAM), a Read Only Memory (ROM), an Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory (EPROM); or on a magnetic or optical disc, such as a Compact Disc Read Only Memory (CDROM), Hard Disk Drive (HDD), or other magnetic or optical disk; or in or on another machine-readable medium. A product, such as a computer program product, may include a storage medium and instructions stored in or on the medium, and the instructions when executed by the circuitry in a device may cause the device to implement any of the processing described above or illustrated in the drawings.
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. 12,126,587. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims recite similar features as those cited in U.S. Patent.
Each of the instant application claims (1, 11 and 18) is broader in scope than the corresponding claims (1, 11 and 18) in said U.S. Patent. For instance, claim 1 in the instant application is directed to determining delivery of a message to a mobile receiver based on location and viewshed. On the other hand, claim 1 in the U.S. Patent is also directed to similar features, despite slight difference in claim language, as recited in claim 1 of the instant application - see comparison table below . Additionally, claims 11 and 18 of the instant application recite similar feature as those cited in the corresponding claims in the U.S. Patent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit elements when the remaining elements perform as before. A person of ordinary skill could have arrived at the present claims by omitting the details of said U.S. Patent claims. See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decided January 16, 1963 (“Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same function as before”).
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 of the instant application also recite similar features as of the claims 2-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 of the U.S. Patent.
An exemplary to show similarity among the conflicting claims (see table below).
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,126,587
1. A message verification system comprising:
a model database configured to store mobile transmitter physical model data; and
verification processing circuitry configured to:
receive transmitter route data for a mobile transmitter;
receive receiver route data for a mobile receiver, the route data including past route data for the mobile receiver at a time that a message transmitted by the mobile transmitter was transmitted;
determine a viewshed for a message transmitted by the mobile transmitter as modeled by the mobile transmitter physical model data; and
compare the viewshed to the receiver route data to determine whether the message was delivered to the mobile receiver, by determining whether the mobile received was within the viewshed at the time that the message was transmitted.
1. A system including:
memory configured to store mobile transmitter physical model data; and
verification processing circuitry configured to:
determine, based on transmitter route data for a mobile transmitter, a viewshed for a message transmitted by the mobile transmitter as modeled by the mobile transmitter physical model data;
determine, based on receiver route data for a mobile receiver, a previous location for the mobile receiver corresponding to a time of transmission of the message; and
compare the previous location and the viewshed to determine whether the message was delivered to the mobile receiver.
11. A method for message verification comprising:
storing, in a model database, mobile transmitter physical model data; and
with verification processing circuitry:
receiving transmitter route data for a mobile transmitter;
receiving receiver route data for a mobile receiver, the route data including past route data for the mobile receiver at a time that a message transmitted by the mobile transmitter was transmitted;
determining a viewshed for a message transmitted by the mobile transmitter as modeled by the mobile transmitter physical model data; and
comparing the viewshed to the receiver route data to determine whether the message was delivered to the mobile receiver, by determining whether the mobile received was within the viewshed at the time that the message was transmitted.
11. A method including:
storing mobile transmitter physical model data; and at verification processing circuitry:
determining, based on transmitter route data for a mobile transmitter, a viewshed for a message transmitted by the mobile transmitter as modeled by the mobile transmitter physical model data;
determining, based on receiver route data for a mobile receiver, a previous location for the mobile receiver corresponding to a time of transmission of the message; and
comparing the previous location and the viewshed to determine whether the message was delivered to the mobile receiver.
18. A product including:
machine-readable media other than transitory signal; and
instructions stored on the machine-readable media, the instructions configured to, when executed, cause a processor to:
store, in a model database, mobile transmitter physical model data;
receive transmitter route data for a mobile transmitter;
receive receiver route data for a mobile receiver, the route data including past route data for the mobile receiver at a time that a message transmitted by the mobile transmitter was transmitted;
determine a viewshed for a message transmitted by the mobile transmitter as modeled by the mobile transmitter physical model data; and
compare the viewshed to the receiver route data to determine whether the message was delivered to the mobile receiver, by determining whether the mobile received was within the viewshed at the time that the message was transmitted.
18. A product including:
machine-readable media other than transitory signal; and
instructions stored on the machine-readable media, the instructions configured to, when executed, cause a processor to:
store mobile transmitter physical model data;
determine, based on transmitter route data for a mobile transmitter, a viewshed for a message transmitted by the mobile transmitter as modeled by the mobile transmitter physical model data;
determine, based on receiver route data for a mobile receiver, a previous location for the mobile receiver corresponding to a time of transmission of the message; and
compare the previous location and the viewshed to determine whether the message was delivered to the mobile receiver.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A WASEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8:00 am – 4:30 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on (571)272-3949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)? If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED A. WASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454