DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The preliminary amendment filed on 01/23/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claim 1 has been canceled.
Claims 2-21 have been newly added.
Claims 2-21 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/200,7 18, filed May23, 2023; which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/994,232, filed August 14, 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 11,699,306, issued July 11, 2023; which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/888,182, filed on August 16, 2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2025, 05/21/2025, and 08/08/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 2-21 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory non-obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Karnik et al., U.S. Patent 11,699,306. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distant from each other because they are drawn to obvious variations.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the claims 2-21 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by the claims 1-20 of US Patent 11,699,306, allowing the claims to result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under Double Patenting, set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art of record is Bellas et al. [USPGPub 2022/0108568], hereinafter referred to as Bellas.
As per claims 2, 11, and 20, the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest:The prior art fails to explicitly teach or suggest or render obvious executing a digital bandpass filter implemented in hardware or software on the first set of measurements in the frequency domain to produce a second set of the measurements that excludes high frequency measurements from the first set of measurements caused by non- vehicular forces; analyzing the second set of the measurements to identify contiguous subsets of measurements in the second set of the measurements; resampling each contiguous subset of measurements at one or more predefined frequencies to extract corresponding sets of features for each contiguous subset of measurements; analyzing each set of the features to determine whether the vehicle stopped after the crash event; and generating a vehicle crash prediction for the crash event based on the motion measurements and whether the vehicle stopped after the crash event.
Claims 3-10 depend from claim 1, claims 12-19 depend from claim 11, and claim 21 depends from claim 20 would also be allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2025/0231034 – Provide vehicle route determination, and more particularly, to vehicle route determination based on motion data. USPGPub 2025/0148837 – Provide estimating vehicle speed, and more particularly, to predicting crash events using vehicle speed predictions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights