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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Status
This action is in response to applicant’s response and claim amendment filed 8/12/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and considered below.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-20 were rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750. Applicant requested that the nonstatutory double patenting rejection be held in abeyance.
Claims 2, 5, 13 and 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because “the mobile computing device” lacked antecedent basis. Applicant has amended these claims to include the limitation “a mobile computing device”. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of these claims is withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vij et al. (US-2017/0140293-A1). Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 12 and 20 to include the limitation “the second risk score being calculated separately from the first risk score”. Applicant argued that Vij generates a single ‘basic trip risk score’ and then identifies a ‘risk adjustment’ and adjusts the basic trip risk score to create an ‘adjusted trip risk score’. Applicant further argued that, in Vij, the risk adjustment is not a distinct second risk score, it is a factor that is added to or multiplied with the basic trip risk score to yield one adjusted score. Examiner agrees. Therefore, the claims, as amended, are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vij.
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 Number 12,246,750. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Comparing claims 1-11 of the instant application with claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750:
“A system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:” (claim 1) of the instant application is the same as “A system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:” (claim 1) of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750;
“receive vehicle property data corresponding to a vehicle” (claim 1) of the instant application is the same as “receive vehicle property data corresponding to a vehicle” (claim 1) of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750;
“receive ancillary data associated with surroundings of the vehicle” (claim 1) of the instant application is the same as “receive ancillary data associated with surroundings of the vehicle” (claim 1) of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750;
“calculate a first risk score associated with the vehicle property data using historical vehicle operations data” (claim 1) of the instant application is the same as “calculate a first risk score associated with the vehicle property data using historical vehicle operations data” (claim 1) of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750;
“calculate a second risk score associated with the ancillary data using historical ancillary data, the second risk score being calculated separately from the first risk score” (claim 1) of the instant application is not patentably distinct from “calculate a second risk score associated with the ancillary data using historical ancillary data” (claim 1) of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750; and
“transmit, via a wireless network, the first risk score and the second risk score to a vehicle control computer to cause performance of a close call detection action to reduce at least one of the first risk score or the second risk score” (claim 1) of the instant application is not patentably distinct from “transmit, via a wireless network, the first risk score and the second risk score to a vehicle control computer to cause performance of a close call detection action to reduce at least one of the first risk score or the second risk score, the close call detection action including disabling of a mobile computing device” (claim 1) of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750.
Comparing claims 12-19 of the instant application with claims 12-19 of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750:
“A method comprising:” (claim 12) of the instant application is the same as “A method comprising:” (claim 12) of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750;
“receiving vehicle property data corresponding to a vehicle” (claim 12) of the instant application is the same as “receiving vehicle property data corresponding to a vehicle” (claim 12) of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750;
“receiving ancillary data associated with surroundings of the vehicle” (claim 12) of the instant application is the same as “receiving ancillary data associated with surroundings of the vehicle”(claim 12) of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750;
“calculating a first risk score associated with the vehicle property data using historical vehicle operations data” (claim 12) of the instant application is the same as “calculating a first risk score associated with the vehicle property data using historical vehicle operations data” (claim 12) of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750;
“calculating a second risk score associated with the ancillary data using historical ancillary data, the second risk score being calculated separately from the first risk score” (claim 12) of the instant application is not patentably distinct from “calculating a second risk score associated with the ancillary data using historical ancillary data” (claim 12) of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750; and
“transmitting, via a wireless network, the first risk score and the second risk score to a vehicle control computer to cause a close call detection action to be performed, the close call detection action reducing at least one of the first risk score or the second risk score” (claim 12) of the instant application is not patentably distinct from “transmitting, via a wireless network, the first risk score and the second risk score to a vehicle control computer to cause a close call detection action to be performed, the close call detection action reducing at least one of the first risk score or the second risk score and including disabling of a mobile computing device” (claim 12) of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750.
Comparing claim 20 of the instant application with claim 20 of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750:
“A non-transitory, computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to:” (claim 20) of the instant application is the same as “A non-transitory, computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to:” (claim 20) of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750;
“receive vehicle property data corresponding to a vehicle” (claim 20) of the instant application is the same as “receive vehicle property data corresponding to a vehicle” (claim 20) of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750;
“receive ancillary data associated with surroundings of the vehicle” (claim 20) of the instant application is the same as “receive ancillary data associated with surroundings of the vehicle” (claim 20) of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750;
“calculate a first risk score using the vehicle property data and historical vehicle operations data” (claim 20) of the instant application is the same as “calculate a first risk score using the vehicle property data and historical vehicle operations data” (claim 20) of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750;
“calculate a second risk score using the ancillary data and historical ancillary data the second risk score being calculated separately from the first risk score” (claim 20) of the instant application is not patentably distinct from “calculate a second risk score using the ancillary data and historical ancillary data” (claim 20) of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750; and
“transmit, via a wireless network, the first risk score and the second risk score to a vehicle control computer to cause execution of a close call detection action to reduce at least one of the first risk score or the second risk score” (claim 20) of the instant application is not patentably distinct from “transmit, via a wireless network, the first risk score and the second risk score to a vehicle control computer to cause execution of a close call detection action to reduce at least one of the first risk score or the second risk score, the close call detection action including disabling of a mobile computing device” (claim 20) of U.S. Patent Number 12,246,750.
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 TAMARA L WEBER whose telephone number is (303)297-4249. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 MTN.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 3134464821. 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.
TAMARA L. WEBER
Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/TAMARA L WEBER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights