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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the double patent rejection is valid, and proper action will be taken upon indicating allowance of the application. Therefore, DP rejection still present.
Applicant’s arguments and amendment to include the objected subject matter in the independent claims , filed 8/25/2026, with respect to claims and have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims has been withdrawn.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are 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.
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 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12167314. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because for example both claims 1 in the instant application and in the patent teaches {a method, comprising: in response to a location of a first edge computing equipment being predicted to be within a geographic area associated with an emergency situation according to aggregated emergency services data (reads on: “analyzing, by first mobile network edge computing equipment comprising a processor, aggregated emergency services data to predict a geographic area associated with an emergency situation”), executing, by a second edge computing equipment, an emergency services application, wherein the emergency services application was previously executed by the first edge computing equipment (reads on: “ and in response to a location of the first mobile network edge computing equipment being within the geographic area, facilitating, by the first mobile network edge computing equipment, moving an emergency services application from being executed by the first mobile network edge computing equipment to being executed via second mobile network edge computing equipment”), and wherein the second edge computing equipment is outside the geographic area of the emergency situation (reads on: “wherein the second mobile network edge computing equipment is outside the geographic area of the emergency situation”); and receiving, by the second edge computing equipment, emergency services data that is sourced from a user equipment, wherein the emergency services data is added to the aggregated emergency services data (reads on claim 2 of the patent: receiving, by the first mobile network edge computing equipment, from a user equipment, emergency services data associated with the emergency situation; and including, by the first mobile network edge computing equipment, the emergency services data in the aggregated emergency services data).
The instant application different than the patent, wherein the patent teaches {wherein the emergency services application comprises a device control application that controls movement of a device}; However, this limitation disclosed in claim 5 in the instant application, therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to re-word claim 1 and combine with claim 5 to obtain the patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,528588. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because for example both claims 1 in the instant application and in the patent teaches {method, comprising: in response to a location of a first edge computing equipment being predicted to be within a geographic area associated with an emergency situation according to aggregated emergency services data (reads on: analyzing, by the first mobile edge computing equipment, the aggregated emergency services data to predict a geographic area of the emergency situation; and in response to a location of the first mobile edge computing equipment being within the geographic area of the emergency situation), executing, by a second edge computing equipment, an emergency services application, wherein the emergency services application was previously executed by the first edge computing equipment, and wherein the second edge computing equipment is outside the geographic area of the emergency situation (reads on: moving an emergency services application from the first mobile edge computing equipment to second mobile edge computing equipment, wherein the second mobile edge computing equipment is outside the geographic area of the emergency situation. ); and receiving, by the second edge computing equipment, emergency services data that is sourced from a user equipment, wherein the emergency services data is added to the aggregated emergency services data (reads on: receiving, from a user equipment by first mobile edge computing equipment comprising a processor, emergency services data associated with an emergency situation, aggregating, by the first mobile edge computing equipment, the emergency services data, resulting in aggregated emergency services data).
The instant application different than the patent, wherein the patent teaches {anonymizing, by the first mobile edge computing equipment, the emergency services data, resulting in anonymized emergency services data; aggregating, by the first mobile edge computing equipment, the anonymized emergency services data, resulting in aggregated emergency services data}; However, this limitation disclosed in claims 2-3 in the instant application, therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to re-word claim 1 and combine with claim 2-3 to obtain the patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims will be allowable after overcoming the DP rejection.
During updated and pervious search, examiner found the following related ats:
Knox (US 20040190497) teaches, in response to a location of a first edge computing equipment being predicted to be within a geographic area associated with an emergency situation according to emergency services data (Paragraph 37: Call Routing System Apparatus 80 also includes a Location Routing Database 84 that is communicating linked with Subscriber Database 82. Location Routing Database 84 provides correlations among locations (LOC) in Subscriber Database 82 and respective PSAP service areas. Paragraph 39: Upon ascertaining which particular PSAP (e.g., PSAP1, 64.sub.1; FIG. 2) serves the caller location from which the extant E9-1-1 call traversing PSTN 54 originates (identified by the TN or LOC or other identifying information in Subscriber Database 82 relating to caller instrument 42), Call Routing System Apparatus 80 and second IP interface apparatus 48 cooperate to establish routing criteria for the extant E9-1-1 call to effect routing the extant call to PSAP1. The routing instructions effect routing the extant E9-1-1 call from IP network 46 via IP-to-PSTN gateway 49 and PSTN 54 to end office EO1, and thence via E9-1-1 -Tandem E911T1 (62.sub.1; FIG. 2) to PSAP1, thereby completing the extant E9-1-1 call placed by caller instrument 42 with an appropriate PSAP (i.e., PSAP1) servicing the geographic area in which caller instrument 42 is situated), and receiving, by the second edge computing equipment, emergency services data that is sourced from a user equipment, wherein the emergency services data is added to the aggregated emergency services data). Knox in paragraph 43 teaches Data relating to the calling party who places the call.
DeCharms (US 20140368601) teaches (Paragraph 290: In addition to dispatching drones and other vehicles to the locations of users to monitor the users by video and other information feeds, autonomous automobiles (e.g., autonomous cars) can be dispatched to the locations of users to not only monitor the situation, but also to provide safe transit from the location for the users, including emergency transit (e.g., ambulance service).
Mehranfar (US 9373014) teaches (when a gunshot is heard, the instructions sets of the response computer system proceed to automatically execute, without the need for human intervention, an instruction set that calls for dispatching an aerial drone to the location where the gunshot occurred, generating a 911 emergency call, and sending a text message to subjects in the closed environment detailing what action to take responsive to the gunshot (e.g., take cover, hide, escape).
Kinney (US 20180144615) teaches (Paragraph 92: the drone devices 260 may be dispatched in response to an incident signal indicating that a user may require emergency assistance. For example, if a user has been injured during a known running route, the wearable device 240 may transmit data to the application server 270 from which the application server 270 may determine there is a likely safety incident, and in response, transmit an incident signal and a location of the user to an emergency responder and also transmit a dispatch instruction with the user location to the drone devices 260.
None of the cited arts alone or in reasonable combination teaches {an emergency services application, wherein the emergency services application was previously executed by the first edge computing equipment, wherein the emergency services application comprises a device control application that controls movement of a device} as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA EL-ZOOBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Carolyn Edward can be reached at (571)270-7136. 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.
/MARIA EL-ZOOBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights