DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claim Rejections - Nonstatutory Double Patenting
3. 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.
4. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,159 in view of Maeng (US 8,886,392).
The following table summarizes the correspondence between limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,159 and limitations of claim 1 of the present application.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,159
Claim 1 of the Present Application
1. A system comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
determine, for a first subset of vehicles, a first electrical characterization;
determine, for a second subset of vehicles different from the first subset of vehicles, a second electrical characterization;
determine a difference between the first electrical characterization and the second electrical characterization;
select a select subset of vehicles, wherein:
the select subset of vehicles includes the first subset of vehicles;
the select subset of vehicles includes the second subset of vehicles if the difference between the first electrical characterization and the second electrical characterization is within a characterization threshold which comprises a vehicle ratio threshold; and
the select subset of vehicles does not include the second subset of vehicles if the difference between the first electrical characterization and the second electrical characterization is not within the characterization threshold, where the second subset of vehicles is not within the characterization threshold if a proportion of vehicles in the second subset of vehicles which are owned by a single entity exceeds the vehicle ratio threshold; and
generate, based on electrical data representing vehicles of the select subset of vehicles, an electrical system metric which is indicative of electrical system performance of vehicles which correspond to vehicles in the select subset of vehicles.
A method comprising:
determining, by at least one processor for a first subset of vehicles, a first electrical characterization, the first subset of vehicles including vehicles of a first vehicle make, model, and fuel type;
determining, by the at least one processor for a second subset of vehicles different from the first subset of vehicles, a second electrical characterization, the second subset of vehicles including vehicles different from the first subset of vehicles in at least one of vehicle make, model, or fuel type;
determining, by the at least one processor, a difference between the first electrical characterization and the second electrical characterization;
selecting, by the at least one processor, a select subset of vehicles, wherein:
the select subset of vehicles includes the first subset of vehicles;
the select subset of vehicles includes the second subset of vehicles if the difference between the first electrical characterization and the second electrical characterization is within a characterization threshold; and
the select subset of vehicles does not include the second subset of vehicles if the difference between the first electrical characterization and the second electrical characterization is not within the characterization threshold; and
generating, by the at least one processor based on electrical data representing vehicles of the select subset of vehicles, an electrical system metric which is indicative of electrical system performance of vehicles which correspond to vehicles in the select subset of vehicles.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,159 does not explicitly teach the first subset of vehicles including vehicles of a first vehicle make, model, and fuel type and the second subset of vehicles including vehicles different from the first subset of vehicles in at least one of vehicle make, model, or fuel type.
In contrast, Maeng teaches a method for managing vehicle maintenance activities wherein updated historic operational data of a particular vehicle is compared to a pre-existing maintenance standard. The pre-existing maintenance standard may be associated with a population of similar vehicles as the particular vehicle, such as vehicles having the same or similar make, model, and fuel type as the particular vehicle (col. 3, lines 12-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,159 such that the first subset of vehicles includes vehicles of a first vehicle make, model, and fuel type and the second subset of vehicles including vehicles different from the first subset of vehicles in at least one of vehicle make, model, or fuel type. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of grouping vehicles according to common characteristics (Maeng; col. 3, lines 12-24).
5. Claims 2-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-13, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,159 in view of Maeng.
Dependent claims 2-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,159, in view of Maeng, substantially describe the subject matter of dependent claims 2-13, respectively, of the present application. Therefore, claims 2-13 of the present application are obvious over claims 2-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,159, respectively, in view of Maeng.
6. Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,159 in view of Maeng.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,159 states that the characterization threshold comprises a vehicle ratio threshold and that the second subset of vehicles is not within the characterization threshold if a proportion of vehicles in the second subset of vehicles which are owned by a single entity exceeds the vehicle ratio threshold. Therefore, claim 14 of the present application is obvious over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,159 in view of Maeng.
7. Claims 15-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-17, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,159 in view of Maeng.
Dependent claims 14-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,159, in view of Maeng, substantially describe the subject matter of dependent claims 15-18, respectively, of the present application. Therefore, claims 15-18 of the present application are obvious over claims 14-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,159, respectively, in view of Maeng.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAS A. SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-4787. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, alt. Fri, 8-5 EST.
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, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/JAS A SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights