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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,417 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following:
Regarding claims 1-8,
The examined claim 1 and the reference claims 1, 2, and 4 include the following common features: “A method comprising: generating, by an apparatus including a processor, a vibrating signal that is received via an acoustic system of a vehicle; receiving, by the apparatus, an audible signal from the vehicle responsive to the vehicle receiving the vibrating signal, wherein the audible signal includes a distress signal; analyzing, by the apparatus, the audible signal to determine content; and transmitting, by the apparatus, a notification associated with an image of the vehicle according to the audible signal, wherein the notification includes information associated with the content.” The key differences between the examined claim 1 and the reference claims are in the specific conditions and steps:
The reference claim 1 further includes the features of “the apparatus comprises roadside equipment,” and “vehicle detecting an inoperable telecommunications interface.”
The examined claim 1 further requires “vehicle selectively activating the acoustic system.”
These differences make the claims at issue are not identical, but at least claim 1 is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because: at first, the examined claim 1 omits the additional features recited in the reference claims would be obvious over the reference claims. Secondly, the reference claims describe that the vibrating signal is received via an acoustic system of a vehicle, wherein the vibrating signal is generated by the roadside apparatus where the audible signal is received from the acoustic system. These inherently indicates that the acoustic system is activated when the vibration signal is received from a roadside apparatus.
For that reason, the invention defined in claim 1 of the currently examined application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in claims 1, 2, and 4 of the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the currently examined application would have been obvious in view of the subject matter claimed in the cited patent.
Regarding claims 9-15:
The examined claim 9 and the reference claims 9, 11, and 12 include the following common features: “An apparatus, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: generating a vibrating signal that is received via an acoustic system of a vehicle; receiving an audible signal from the vehicle responsive to the vehicle receiving the vibrating signal, wherein the audible signal includes a distress signal; analyzing the audible signal to determine content; and transmitting a notification associated with an image of the vehicle according to the audible signal, wherein the notification includes information associated with the content.”
The key differences between the examined claim 9 and the reference claims are in the specific conditions:
a. The reference claim 9 further includes the features of “the apparatus comprises roadside equipment,” and “vehicle detecting an inoperable telecommunications interface.”
b. The examined claim 9 further requires “vehicle selectively activating the acoustic system.”
These differences make the claims at issue are not identical, but at least claim 9 is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because: at first, the examined claim 9 omits the additional features recited in the reference claims would be obvious over the reference claims. Secondly, the reference claims describe that the vibrating signal is received via an acoustic system of a vehicle, wherein the vibrating signal is generated by the roadside apparatus where the audible signal is received from the acoustic system. These inherently indicates that the acoustic system is activated when the vibration signal is received from a roadside apparatus.
For that reason, the invention defined in claim 9 of the currently examined application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in claims 9, 11, and 12 of the patent.
Regarding claims 16-20:
The examined claim 16 and the reference claims 16, 18, and 19 include the following common features: “a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations at an apparatus, the operations comprising: generating a vibrating signal that is received via an acoustic system of a vehicle; receiving an audible signal from the vehicle responsive to the vehicle receiving the vibrating signal, wherein the audible signal includes a distress signal; analyzing the audible signal to determine content; obtaining an image of the vehicle; and transmitting a notification associated with the image of the vehicle according to the audible signal, wherein the notification includes information associated with the content.”
The key differences between the examined claim 16 and the reference claims are in the specific conditions:
a. The reference claims further includes the features of “the apparatus comprises roadside equipment.”
b. The examined claim 16 further requires “vehicle selectively activating the acoustic system.”
These differences make the claims at issue are not identical, but at least claim 16 is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because: at first, the examined claim 9 omits the additional features recited in the reference claims would be obvious over the reference claims. Secondly, the reference claims describe that the vibrating signal is received via an acoustic system of a vehicle, wherein the vibrating signal is generated by the roadside apparatus where the audible signal is received from the acoustic system. These inherently indicates that the acoustic system is activated when the vibration signal is received from a roadside apparatus.
For that reason, the invention defined in claim 16 of the currently examined application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in claims 16, 18, and 19 of the patent.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant disclosure. The following patent documents are cited in the PTO-892 to further show the state of the art in general: US 2020/0351616 A1 by Vanderveen et al. which discloses a system and method for tracking a location of a vehicle. The system is configured to receive a tracking request for a target vehicle, creating a target vehicle list, and distributing the target vehicle list to at least one V2V endpoint; US 2020/0005644 A1 by Ichimaru et al. which discloses a system/a computer program for transmitting first and second information to a server. The server is configured to generate a third information based on the first and second information, and transmitting the third information to a mobile terminal; EP-3553473-A1 by Keshavamurthy which discloses a system and method for analyzing sensor data of a vehicle to determine one or more of a localized lane option and a localized path option for navigating the vehicle to a central server.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Vivek D Koppikar, can be reached on (571) 272-5109.
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).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667