Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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. This communication is in response to the Application No. 18/940,353 filed on 11/7/24. Claims 1 – 20 has been examined.
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).
4. 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).
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,904 in view of Amorim de Faria Cardote et al. (US 2017/0195953, Cardote hereafter). Please see below:
Instant Application
Pat # 12,143,904
A computer-implemented method, comprising: determining whether a mobile device of a user is in a vehicle during a time interval based at least upon sensor data, wherein the sensor data comprises first sensor data collected at a first time and second sensor data collected at a second time by the mobile device of the user, wherein the second time follows the first time by the time interval, and wherein determining whether the mobile device of the user is in the vehicle during the time interval includes: comparing at least a portion of the second sensor data with at least a portion of the first sensor data to determine one or more changes during the time interval; and determining whether the one or more changes satisfy one or more predetermined conditions; and determining a reliability of the sensor data based on determining whether the mobile device of the user is in the vehicle during the time interval.
A computer-implemented method for verifying a reliability of sensor data collected by an application installed on a mobile device of a user and configured to cause one or more sensors of the mobile device to generate the sensor data in response to the mobile device being in a vehicle, comprising: collecting, at a first time by the mobile device, first sensor data; collecting, at a second time by the mobile device, second sensor data, the second time following the first time by a time interval; determining whether the mobile device is in the vehicle during the time interval based at least upon the first sensor data and the second sensor data; and in response to the mobile device not being in the vehicle during the time interval, determining that the reliability of the sensor data is not verified.
As shown above the both claims find the reliability of a sensor and whether the mobile device is in a vehicle. However, the instant application requires and/or finds the reliability by “comparing at least a portion of the second sensor data with at least a portion of the first sensor data to determine one or more changes during the time interval.” Which is different than Pat # 12,143,904.
Cardote teaches comparing at least a portion of the second sensor data with at least a portion of the first sensor data to determine one or more changes during the time interval (data collected by sensors from different devices 700 may be aggregated to improve the overall reliability of the sensor data. For example, data from rain and light sensors of a first device 700 may be compared with data from rain and light sensors from a second device 700 (e.g., that was driving in close proximity to the first device 700 at the time of measurement) to deliver more accurate weather information, paragraph 159).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Cardote’s find the sensor reliability by comparing sensor data of Pat # 12,143,904. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because it will provide accurate reliability of the system; which will help improve sensor reliability.
8. Claim(s) 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,904. Please see below:
Instant application
Pat # 12,143,904
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein, the first sensor data includes one or more of first accelerometer data, first gyroscope data, first location data, or first magnetometer data, and the second sensor data includes one or more of second accelerometer data, second gyroscope data, second location data, or second magnetometer data.
The method of claim 1, wherein: the first sensor data includes first accelerometer data, first gyroscope data, first location data, and first magnetometer data; and the second sensor data includes second
accelerometer data, second gyroscope data, second location data, and second magnetometer data.
Regarding claim 17, the computing system substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 18, the non-transitory computer readable medium substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 2 – 4, 6 – 16, 19 – 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
10. ,Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANMAY K SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri - 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/TANMAY K SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
TANMAY K. SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights