DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of copending Application No. 18/223239(reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application recites:
A method comprising:
displaying, by one or more processors, on a display of a client computing device associated with a user, a plurality of options, each option being associated with a respective suggested location to maneuver a vehicle operating in an autonomous mode;
receiving, by the one or more processors, a first user input identifying a particular one of the plurality of options selected by the user; and
sending, by the one or more processors, information identifying the respective suggested location associated with the particular one of the plurality of options to one or more server computing devices of a dispatching system in order to provide the vehicle with instructions to maneuver in the autonomous mode to the respective suggested location associated with the particular one of the plurality of options.
And claim 1 of application 18/223,239 recites A method comprising: receiving, by one or more processors from a client computing device associated with a user, a request for a vehicle having an autonomous driving mode, the request identifying a plurality of locations within a service area of an autonomous vehicle service, the plurality of locations including a pickup location, a destination location, and one or more intermediate stopping locations;
accessing, by the one or more processors, map information to determine which locations of the plurality of locations identified by the request correspond to predetermined locations for picking up or dropping off passengers;
providing, by the one or more processors to the client computing device, suggested locations corresponding to the determined locations; in response to providing the suggested locations, receiving, by the one or more processors, information identifying at least one of the suggested locations; and
providing, by the one or more processors, the identified at least one of the suggested locations to the vehicle with instructions to maneuver the vehicle to the identified at least one of the suggested locations.
Though the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the step of sending information identifying the respective suggested location is equivalent to
providing, by the one or more processors to the client computing device, suggested locations corresponding to the determined locations; in response to providing the suggested locations, receiving, by the one or more processors, information identifying at least one of the suggested locations. (When sending information, it is providing suggested locations as information). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the systems by providing or sending suggested locations for the vehicle to maneuver.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Richardson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,991,910) discloses a system, method, and computer-readable medium for updating request routing information associated with client location information are provided. A content delivery network service provider receives a DNS query from a client computing device. The DNS query corresponds to a resource identifier for requested content from the client computing device. The content delivery network service provider obtains a query IP address corresponding to the client computing device. Based on routing information associated with the query IP address, the content delivery network service provider routes the DNS query. The process further includes monitoring performance data associated with the transmission of the requested resource and updating routing information associated with the query IP address based on the performance data for use in processing subsequent requests form the client computing device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30-8:00 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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661