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 .
Status of the Claims
This FINAL action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 21 July 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Objections and rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 27 May 2026 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Objections and rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 27 May 2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant acknowledges the Claim Interpretation as set forth in the office action of 27 May 2026, Examiner does not repeat the Claim Interpretation herein.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Double Patenting rejection as set forth in the office action of 27 May 2026 have been considered. Applicant believes a terminal disclaimer has been submitted; however, there is no terminal disclaimer on the record as of yet. Therefore, the Double Patenting rejection is maintained as seen below.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 102/103 as set forth in the office action of 27 May 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “wherein communicating comprises transmitting an indication of the identification of the occupant based at least in part on confirming the identification of the occupant” (emphasis added). Applicant’s specification provides support for the vehicle confirming an identification of an occupant and for the vehicle itself to then generate a request based on the confirmed identification and Applicant’s specification separately also has support for the vehicle transmitting the identification of the occupant to the security entity so that the security entity can generate a request based on the transmitted identification. However, there is no support in Applicant’s specification for the vehicle to be confirming the identification itself and then transmit the identification based on confirming the identification (emphases added) for the security entity to then generate the request based on the transmitted/received identification.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 recite “wherein the request is received in response to a determination that the first route crosses a security border”. Applicant’s specification provides support for the vehicle to be communicating with a security entity in order to receive a request when needed once determined that the first route crosses a security border, however, there is no support for the request to be received directly in response to such determination.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14 and 16-19 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 1, 8 and 15 are indefinite because of the recited limitations “wherein communicating ...” and “based ... on transmitting ...”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant is referring back to the previously recited limitations “communicate/communicating ... with ...” and “transmitting an ...”, respectively or not.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are indefinite because of the recited limitations “wherein the request is based at least in part on physiological information”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant meant to instead recite “wherein the request is further based at least in part on physiological information” or whether the limitations of claims 2, 9 and 16 are meant to replace the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 reciting “the request ... based at least in part on transmitting the indication of the identification of the occupant”, respectively.
Claims 3-7, 10-14 and 17-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuji (US20200143940A1) in view of Freeman (US20180348759A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yuji discloses a vehicle (see at least abstract), comprising: a plurality of sensors (see at least Figure 3, [0056] and [0060]); and an on-board computer system connected to the plurality of sensors (see at least Figure 3, [0055], [0056], [0060] and [0061]) and configured to: drive autonomously, according to sensor data generated by the plurality of sensors, the vehicle on a first route to a first destination (see at least [0056], [0059] and [0063]); communicate with, during autonomous driving of the vehicle on the first route to the first destination, a security entity to receive a request from the security entity (see at least [0062], [0071], [0073], [0079] and [0080]); and drive autonomously, in response to the request from the security entity, the vehicle to a facility that is not on the first route (see at least [0059], [0062], [0080] and [0081]).
Yuji fails to disclose confirm an identification of an occupant within the vehicle based at least in part on image data collected by the plurality of sensors and based at least in part on wirelessly accessed content from a data storage structure external to the vehicle; wherein communicating comprises transmitting an indication of the identification of the occupant based at least in part on confirming the identification of the occupant; and for the request from the security entity to be based at least in part on transmitting the indication of the identification of the occupant. However, Freeman teaches confirm an identification of an occupant within the vehicle based at least in part on image data collected by the plurality of sensors and based at least in part on wirelessly accessed content from a data storage structure external to the vehicle; wherein communicating comprises transmitting an indication of the identification of the occupant based at least in part on confirming the identification of the occupant; and for the request from the security entity to be based at least in part on transmitting the indication of the identification of the occupant (see at least [0039], [0043], [0044] and [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Yuji to incorporate the teachings of Freeman which teaches confirm an identification of an occupant within the vehicle based at least in part on image data collected by the plurality of sensors and based at least in part on wirelessly accessed content from a data storage structure external to the vehicle; wherein communicating comprises transmitting an indication of the identification of the occupant based at least in part on confirming the identification of the occupant; and for the request from the security entity to be based at least in part on transmitting the indication of the identification of the occupant since they are directed to communications between vehicle(s) and security entities about the occupant(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Freeman would increase the reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 2, Yuji as modified by Freeman discloses wherein the request is based at least in part on physiological information of the occupant of the vehicle (see at least Yuji [0074] and [0077]-[0080]).
Regarding claim 3, Yuji as modified by Freeman discloses wherein the on-board computer system is further configured to communicate the physiological information of the occupant of the vehicle to the security entity (see at least Yuji [0062] and [0073]); and the security entity is configured to determine whether to send the request to the vehicle based at least in part on the physiological information of the occupant of the vehicle (see at least Yuji [0074] and [0077]-[0080]).
Regarding claim 4, Yuji as modified by Freeman discloses wherein the on-board computer system is further configured to communicate with a wearable device of the occupant to determine the physiological information of the occupant (see at least Yuji Figure 3, [0055], [0060] and [0061]).
Regarding claim 5, Yuji as modified by Freeman discloses wherein the plurality of sensors include a contactless sensor operable to determine the physiological information of the occupant of the vehicle (see at least Yuji [0060]).
Regarding claims 8-12, claims 8-12 are commensurate in scope with claims 1-5, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 1-5.
Regarding claim 15, Yuji discloses a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program code embodied therewith, the program code readable and executable by one processor configured on a vehicle to perform a method (see at least Figure 3, [0061] and [0063]). The rest of claim 15 is commensurate in scope with claim 1. See above for rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 16-19, claims 16-19 are commensurate in scope with claims 2-5, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 2-5.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuji (US20200143940A1) in view of Freeman (US20180348759A1) in further view of Houser (WO1997013208A1; page numbers cited are associated with the numbers at the middle top of the pages that total to 30).
Regarding claim 6, Yuji as modified by Freeman fails to disclose wherein the request is received in response to a determination that the first route crosses a security border. However, Houser teaches wherein the request is received in response to a determination that the first route crosses a security border (see at least Figure 2A, lines 21-28 on pg.8, lines 3-12/29-32 on pg.11, lines 3-9 on pg.12, lines 1-4/15-25 on pg.13 and lines 6-12 on pg.14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Yuji as modified by Freeman to incorporate the teachings of Houser which teaches wherein the request is received in response to a determination that the first route crosses a security border since they are directed to vehicle communications with entities that provide security/protection and incorporation of the teachings of Houser would increase utility, reliability and safety of the overall system since another situation which can benefit from vehicles communicating with security entities when considering/monitoring occupants’ physiological information (health, biometric, etc.) is when a vehicle’s route crosses a security border (see at least Houser lines 24-27 on pg. 1, lines 9-11 of pg. 11, line 26 on pg.13-line 5 on pg. 14 and lines 25-28 on pg. 15).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is commensurate in scope with claim 6. See above for rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuji (US20200143940A1) in view of Freeman (US20180348759A1) in further view of Houser (WO1997013208A1) in further view of Channah (US20170103265A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yuji as modified by Freeman and Houser does not explicitly disclose wherein the facility is a border security facility. However, Channah teaches wherein the facility is a border security facility (see at least Figure 3C and [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Yuji as modified by Freeman and Houser to incorporate the teachings of Channah which teaches wherein the facility is a border security facility since they are directed to vehicles and security entities that provide security/protection and incorporation of the teachings of Channah would increase utility and safety of the overall system since the request of security entities when considering/monitoring occupants’ physiological information (health, biometric, etc.) at a security border can be to proceed to a facility such as a border security facility not on vehicle’s direct route to increase safety and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is commensurate in scope with claim 7. See above for rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is commensurate in scope with claims 6 and 7. See above for rejection of claims 6 and 7.
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 1-36 of U.S. Patent No. 12135215 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application cover the same subject matter claimed in the reference application with only slight but obvious/implicit differences in wording, when the claims of the reference application are read in light of the reference application specification, and with the limitations of the claims in the present application corresponding to and/or obvious from the limitations in the reference application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11105641 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application cover the same subject matter claimed in the reference application with only slight but obvious/implicit differences in wording, when the claims of the reference application are read in light of the reference application specification, and with the limitations of the claims in the present application corresponding to and/or obvious from the limitations in the reference application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10690504 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application cover the same subject matter claimed in the reference application with only slight but obvious/implicit differences in wording, when the claims of the reference application are read in light of the reference application specification, and with the limitations of the claims in the present application corresponding to and/or obvious from the limitations in the reference application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights