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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,209. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Theodore et al., US Pg. Pub. No. (2019/0068382) referred to hereinafter as Theodore.
As per claim 1, Theodore teaches a system comprising: a computing device communicatively connected to a network (see at least abstract, summary, figs. 6-7, para 29, 34,), the computing device including: a plurality of communication components (see at least abstract, summary, figs. 6-7, para 29, 34, 37, 51,), and an electronic processor configured to: authenticate a vehicle (see at least abstract, summary, figs. 6-7, para 29, 34, 37,); and in response to authenticating the vehicle, assign a communication component of the plurality of communication components to the vehicle, the communication component configured to: receive vehicle data from the vehicle (see at least abstract, summary, figs. 6-7, para 29, 34, 37, 51, 53); and facilitate communication of the vehicle data among a plurality of vehicles via the network based on a communication function relating a plurality of optimization criteria related to the network (see at least abstract, summary, figs. 6-7, para 29, 34, 37, 51, 53, 55, 63).
As per claim 2, Theodore teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of optimization criteria include a transmission time; an error rate transmission cap, a physical trajectory for a communication pathway in the network, or a communication threshold associated with a communication parameter in a communication pathway in the network (see at least abstract, summary, figs. 6-7, para 29, 34, 37, 51, 53, 55, 63).
As per claim 3, Theodore teaches a system of claim 2, wherein the communication threshold includes an error rate, a transmission speed, a signal-noise ratio, a physical trajectory, or a signal strength (see at least abstract, summary, figs. 6-7, para 29, 34, 37, 51, 53, 55, 63).
As per claim 4, Theodore teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of optimization criteria are tuned according to the communication function to maximize or minimize at least one communication constraint related to the network.
As per claim 5, Theodore teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the electronic processor is configured to authenticate the vehicle by: receiving a physical signature credential from the vehicle; and comparing the physical signature credential to an authorized signature credential stored in a physical signature database (see at least abstract, summary, figs. 6-7, para 29, 34, 37, 51, 53, 55, 63).
As per claim 6, Theodore teaches a system of claim 5, wherein the physical signature credential comprises a physiological characteristic of a pilot (see at least abstract, summary, figs. 6-7, para 29, 34, 37, 51, 53, 55, 63).
As per claim 7, Theodore teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the network is a mesh network comprising: a plurality of local mesh networks, wherein each local network comprises a plurality of nodes representing non-local entities; and a central mesh network, wherein the central mesh network is configured to communicate with the plurality of nodes representing non-local entities as a function of the plurality of local mesh networks (see at least abstract, summary, figs. 6-7, para 29, 34, 37, 51, 53, 55, 63).
As per claim 8, Theodore teaches a system of claim 7, wherein the electronic processor is further configured to: in response to assigning the communication component to the vehicle, assign a node in the mesh network to the communication component (see at least abstract, summary, figs. 6-7, para 29, 34, 37, 51, 53, 55, 63).
As per claim 9, Theodore teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle data includes vehicle logistics, location of the vehicle, or component state data (see at least abstract, summary, figs. 6-7, para 29, 34, 37, 51, 53, 55, 63).
As per claim 10, Theodore teaches a system of claim 9, wherein the component state data comprises a health status of a flight component, wherein the flight component comprises an electric propulsion assembly (see at least abstract, summary, figs. 6-7, para 29, 34, 37, 51, 53, 55, 63).
As per claim 11, Theodore teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of vehicle includes at least an electric vehicle (see at least abstract, summary, figs. 6-7, para 29, 34, 37, 51, 53, 55, 63).
As per claim 12, Theodore teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is a first vehicle of the plurality of vehicle, the communication component is a first communication component, the first communication component is further configured to facilitate communication of the vehicle data by providing the vehicle data to a second vehicle of the plurality of vehicle via a second communication component of the plurality of communication components, and the second communication component assigned to the second vehicle (see at least abstract, summary, figs. 6-7, para 29, 34, 37, 51, 53, 55, 63).
As per claims 13-20, the limitations of claims 13-20 are similar to the limitations of claims 1-12, therefore they are rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
Please refer to from 892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSSA A SHAAWAT whose telephone number is (313)446-6592. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached on 571-270-7429. 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.
/MUSSA A SHAAWAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669