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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 04/14/2026.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 1 and 8 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
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.
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 1-14 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.
As per claims 1 and 8, each claim recites that a notification is sent that that the secondary delivery vehicle is going to board or alight from the primary delivery vehicle “while the primary delivery vehicle is continuously traveling without stopping in the boarding/alighting zone.” As outlined below, the recitation of “while the vehicle is continuously traveling” may be interpreted to a status of the primary vehicle (continuously traveling) at the time the notification is sent, or to indicate to the secondary vehicle that the status of the primary vehicle will be continuously traveling when the secondary vehicle boards or alights the primary vehicle. In either case, no description is given in the specification or in the originally filed claims of such a notification. Paragraphs [0056, 63, 67, and 74] of the present specification (as filed) each indicate that a notification may be sent which indicates to a following vehicle that a secondary vehicle is going to board or alight from the primary vehicle. However, no description is given as to the content of that notification indicating that the primary vehicle will be continuously moving when the boarding or alighting takes place. Furthermore, no description is given, as to the fact that the primary vehicle may be continuously moving while the sending of the notification itself takes place. As such, in either interpretation below, the sending of a notification that the secondary delivery vehicle is going to board or alight from the primary delivery vehicle “while the primary delivery vehicle is continuously traveling without stopping in the boarding/alighting zone” is not described in such a way as to reasonable convey to one skill in the art that the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 8 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
As per claims 2-7 and 9-14, each claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because these claims ultimately depend from either claim 1 or claim 8, and do not cure the above deficiencies.
Claims 1-14 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.
As per claims 1 and 8, the claims recite that a notification is sent that the secondary delivery vehicle is going to board or alight from the primary delivery vehicle “while the primary delivery vehicle is continuously traveling without stopping in the boarding/alighting zone.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite, because it would be unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether the notification itself is sent while the primary vehicle is continuously traveling, or whether the notification which is sent indicates to the following vehicle that the primary vehicle will be continuously traveling when the secondary vehicle boards or alights from the primary vehicle. When a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the Applicant considers to be the invention. Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008). Such is the case here, as outlined above. Since it would be unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether the recitation of “while the vehicle is continuously traveling” is to indicate when the notification is sent, or is to indicate the status of the primary vehicle being continuously traveling when the secondary vehicle boards or alights the primary vehicle, the claim is subject to two plausible claim constructions, and claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
As per claims 2-7 and 9-14, each claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because these claims ultimately depend from either claim 1 or claim 8, and do not cure the above deficiencies.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Regarding the novelty/non-obviousness of claims 1 and 8, the prior does not appear to teach a notification sent to a following vehicle that a secondary vehicle is going to alight from the primary vehicle while the primary vehicle is continuously traveling without stopping in the boarding/alighting zone.
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 EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights