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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed 11/20/2024 (claimed priority date 02/15/2019):
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
L = line, e.g., l25 = line 25; l25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
1.1 Claims 1-20 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.
1.1.1 Claims 1 and 8 recite the limitation/feature “a respective optimal route” in both the claim preamble and in the claim body in each claim 1 and 8, which is unclear whether the same “respective optimal route” is being claimed, or different “respective optimal routes” are being claimed, which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification and/or appropriate correction required.
For the purpose of this examination, it will be interpreted that the same “respective optimal route” is being claimed in claims 1 and 8.
1.1.2 Claims 1, 8 and 14 recite the following limitations: "the respective vehicle;" “the priority criteria of the subset of tasks,” in the bodies of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
1.1.3 Claims 2, 7, 9, 13, 15 and 20 recites the following limitation: "the corresponding vehicle" in the bodies of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
1.1.4 Claims 6, 11 and 19 recite the following limitation: "the corresponding task" in the bodies of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
1.1.5 Claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claims, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
1. Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 8 and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No.: 11466997 and claims 1, 5 and 17-18 of U.S. Patent No.: 12181300. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
it is obvious that the narrower claim combination of narrower system/apparatus claims 1-2 and 8 of U.S. Patent No.: 11466997 and narrower system/apparatus claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent 12181300 covers the broader claim combination of broader system/apparatus claim 1 and broader non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 14 of the instant application,
it is obvious that the narrower claim combination of narrower method claims 19-20 and system/apparatus claim 2 and 8 of U.S. Patent No.: 11466997 and narrower method claims 17-18 and system/apparatus claim 5 of U.S. Patent 12181300 covers the broader claim combination of broader method claim 8 and broader non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 14 of the instant application.
2. Claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20 rejected under the nonstatutory double patenting rejections, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claims.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
Kocis (US20090187450) – (see entire Kocis document, particularly abstract – teaching a computer modeling application for finding the optimal solution to maximize total net margin, for the assignment of vehicles (e.g., especially vessels) in an available fleet to perform a set of voyages to transport cargo comprising one or more bulk products during a planning period, as well as an apparatus and method employing the same; the fleet that includes term vehicles and spot vehicles; the vehicles, voyages, and cargos as being heterogeneous; the vehicles as being crude carrier vessels and the bulk products as being different grades of crude oil; to increase speed, the model broken into linear programming and mixed integer (linear) programming problems; the model as being run on a real-time basis to support complex scheduling operations).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. YURI KAN, P.E., whose telephone number is (571) 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on (571) 270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YURI KAN, P.E./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662