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 .
Claims 17-36 have been examined.
Claims 1-16 have been canceled.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “wherein the computer system is configured to:” followed by limitations of “receiving”, “determining”, “comparing”, “creating” and “controlling”, which is improper grammar. In other words, each instance of “receiving”, “determining”, “comparing”, “creating” and “controlling” are improper grammar as the limitation “wherein the computer system is configured to:” would instead require grammar such as, for example, “receive”, “compare”, “create” and “control”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 17-36 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the normal manual mode driving" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the normal manual mode driving" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 17, 19-27 and 29-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,077,056. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 17 is encompassed by Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,077,056, which will be referred to as Patent ‘056. Regarding the Claim 17 limitation of a “safe operating range data including an upper and lower value for at least one safe operating parameter”, clearly any range includes an upper and lower value, and Claim 1 of Patent ‘056 implies that the “custom control” does not use the “combined collected and accessed pre-existing telematics data” that exceeds the “limit” or “safe operating range”, where clearly a comparison between the “combined collected and accessed pre-existing telematics data” and the “limit” or “range” would occur in order to determine what data could or could not be used with the “custom control”. Furthermore, there is no patentable distinction between determining a “safe operating range” as in Claim 1 of Patent ‘056 and “receiving” the “safe operating range” as in Claim 17, as determining a “safe operating range” would create the “safe operating range” as a data result that is received by another software or hardware element for use. Furthermore, regarding the limitations of “collected over a period of time” of the present application, any data collection process occurs over a period of time, as it is not possible to collect data independently of time.
Claim 19 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘056.
Claim 20 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘056.
Claim 21 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘056.
Claim 22 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘056.
Claim 23 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘056.
Claim 24 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘056.
Claim 25 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘056.
Claim 26 is encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘056.
Claim 27 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘056 (see the discussion of Claim 17 above).
Claim 29 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘056.
Claim 30 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘056.
Claim 31 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘056.
Claim 32 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘056.
Claim 33 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘056.
Claim 34 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘056.
Claim 35 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘056.
Claim 36 is encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘056.
Claims 17-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,239,538. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 17 is encompassed by Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,239,538, which will be referred to as Patent ‘538. Regarding the Claim 17 limitation of a “safe operating range data including an upper and lower value for at least one safe operating parameter”, clearly any range includes an upper and lower value, and Claim 1 of Patent ‘538 implies that the “custom control” does not use the “combined collected and accessed pre-existing telematics data” that exceeds the “limit” or “safe operating range”, where clearly a comparison between the “combined collected and accessed pre-existing telematics data” and the “limit” or “range” would occur in order to determine what data could or could not be used with the “custom control”. Furthermore, there is no patentable distinction between determining a “safe operating range” as in Claim 1 of Patent ‘538 and “receiving” the “safe operating range” as in Claim 17, as determining a “safe operating range” would create the “safe operating range” as a data result that is received by another software or hardware element for use. Furthermore, regarding the limitations of “collected over a period of time” of the present application, any data collection process occurs over a period of time, as it is not possible to collect data independently of time.
Claim 19 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘538.
Claim 20 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘538.
Claim 21 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘538.
Claim 22 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘538.
Claim 23 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘538.
Claim 24 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘538.
Claim 25 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘538.
Claim 26 is encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘538.
Claim 27 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘538 (see the discussion of Claim 17 above).
Claim 29 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘538.
Claim 30 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘538.
Claim 31 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘538.
Claim 32 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘538.
Claim 33 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘538.
Claim 34 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘538.
Claim 35 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘538.
Claim 36 is encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘538.
Claims 17-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,689,003. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 17 is encompassed by Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,689,003, which will be referred to as Patent ‘003. Regarding the Claim 17 limitation of a “safe operating range data including an upper and lower value for at least one safe operating parameter”, clearly any range includes an upper and lower value, and Claim 1 of Patent ‘003 implies that the “custom control” does not use the “combined collected and accessed pre-existing telematics data” that exceeds the “limit” or “safe operating range”, where clearly a comparison between the “combined collected and accessed pre-existing telematics data” and the “limit” or “range” would occur in order to determine what data could or could not be used with the “custom control”. Furthermore, there is no patentable distinction between determining a “safe operating range” as in Claim 1 of Patent ‘003 and “receiving” the “safe operating range” as in Claim 17, as determining a “safe operating range” would create the “safe operating range” as a data result that is received by another software or hardware element for use. Furthermore, regarding the limitations of “collected over a period of time” of the present application, any data collection process occurs over a period of time, as it is not possible to collect data independently of time.
Claim 19 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘003.
Claim 20 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘003.
Claim 21 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘003.
Claim 22 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘003.
Claim 23 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘003.
Claim 24 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘003.
Claim 25 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘003.
Claim 26 is encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘003.
Claim 27 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘003 (see the discussion of Claim 17 above).
Claim 29 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘003.
Claim 30 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘003.
Claim 31 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘003.
Claim 32 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘003.
Claim 33 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘003.
Claim 34 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘003.
Claim 35 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘003.
Claim 36 is encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘003.
Claims 17-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,400,945. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 17 is encompassed by Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,400,945, which will be referred to as Patent ‘945. Regarding the Claim 17 limitation of a “safe operating range data including an upper and lower value for at least one safe operating parameter”, clearly any range includes an upper and lower value, and Claim 1 of Patent ‘945 implies that the “custom control” does not use the “combined collected and accessed pre-existing telematics data” that exceeds the “limit” or “safe operating range”, where clearly a comparison between the “combined collected and accessed pre-existing telematics data” and the “limit” or “range” would occur in order to determine what data could or could not be used with the “custom control”. Furthermore, there is no patentable distinction between determining a “safe operating range” as in Claim 1 of Patent ‘945 and “receiving” the “safe operating range” as in Claim 17, as determining a “safe operating range” would create the “safe operating range” as a data result that is received by another software or hardware element for use. Furthermore, regarding the limitations of “collected over a period of time” of the present application, any data collection process occurs over a period of time, as it is not possible to collect data independently of time.
Claim 19 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘945.
Claim 20 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘945.
Claim 21 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘945.
Claim 22 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘945.
Claim 23 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘945.
Claim 24 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘945.
Claim 25 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘945.
Claim 26 is encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘945.
Claim 27 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘945 (see the discussion of Claim 17 above).
Claim 29 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘945.
Claim 30 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘945.
Claim 31 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘945.
Claim 32 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘945.
Claim 33 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘945.
Claim 34 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘945.
Claim 35 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘945.
Claim 36 is encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘945.
Claims 17-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,623,649. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 17 is encompassed by Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,623,649, which will be referred to as Patent ‘649. Regarding the Claim 17 limitation of a “safe operating range data including an upper and lower value for at least one safe operating parameter”, clearly any range includes an upper and lower value, and Claim 1 of Patent ‘649implies that the “custom control” does not use the “combined collected and accessed pre-existing telematics data” that exceeds the “limit” or “safe operating range”, where clearly a comparison between the “combined collected and accessed pre-existing telematics data” and the “limit” or “range” would occur in order to determine what data could or could not be used with the “custom control”. Furthermore, there is no patentable distinction between determining a “safe operating range” as in Claim 1 of Patent ‘649and “receiving” the “safe operating range” as in Claim 17, as determining a “safe operating range” would create the “safe operating range” as a data result that is received by another software or hardware element for use. Furthermore, regarding the limitations of “collected over a period of time” of the present application, any data collection process occurs over a period of time, as it is not possible to collect data independently of time.
Claim 19 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘649.
Claim 20 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘649.
Claim 21 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘649.
Claim 22 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘649.
Claim 23 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘649.
Claim 24 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘649.
Claim 25 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘649.
Claim 26 is encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘649.
Claim 27 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘649 (see the discussion of Claim 17 above).
Claim 29 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘649.
Claim 30 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘649.
Claim 31 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘649.
Claim 32 is encompassed by Claims 7 and 9 of Patent ‘649.
Claim 33 is encompassed by Claims 6 and 8 of Patent ‘649.
Claim 34 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘649.
Claim 35 is encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘649.
Claim 36 is encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘649.
Claims 17-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,269,485. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 17 is encompassed by Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,269,485, which will be referred to as Patent ‘485.
Claim 19 is encompassed by Claims 2 and 6 of Patent ‘485.
Claim 20 is encompassed by Claim 3 of Patent ‘485.
Claim 21 is encompassed by Claim 4 of Patent ‘485.
Claim 22 is encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘485.
Claim 23 is encompassed by Claim 2 and 6 of Patent ‘485.
Claim 24 is encompassed by Claim 7 of Patent ‘485.
Claim 25 is encompassed by Claim 8 of Patent ‘485.
Claim 26 is encompassed by Claim 9 of Patent ‘485.
Claim 27 is encompassed by Claim 10 of Patent ‘485.
Claim 29 is encompassed by Claims 11 and 15 of Patent ‘485.
Claim 30 is encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘485.
Claim 31 is encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘485.
Claim 32 is encompassed by Claim 14 of Patent ‘485.
Claim 33 is encompassed by Claims 11 and 15 of Patent ‘485.
Claim 34 is encompassed by Claim 16 of Patent ‘485.
Claim 35 is encompassed by Claim 17 of Patent ‘485.
Claim 36 is encompassed by Claim 18 of Patent ‘485.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-36 are allowable over the prior art, but are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and Double Patenting.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding the prior art, the closest prior art of record is Attard et al. (2015/0149017) and Pilutti et al. (2016/0159350).
While Attard et al. does teach collecting driving behavior data in a manual driving mode and using this data to control a vehicle in an autonomous driving mode (see at least P[0021] of Attard et al.), and Pilutti et al. teaches determining a set point speed for a vehicle in an autonomous or partially autonomous mode, where the set point speed may be determined based on a driver preference, and additionally based on an average or median speed of vehicles travelling through a particular location (Pilutti et al.; see P[0028]-P[0030]), Attard et al. and Pilutti et al. taken either alone or in combination with other prior art does not teach or render obvious the amended limitations of the independent claims taken as a whole, in particular the limitations “receiving, by the one or more processors, safe operating range data including an upper and lower value for at least one safe operating parameter; comparing the normal manual mode driving to the safe operating range data; when the manual mode driving data is outside of the upper and lower value of the safe operating range data, creating, by the one or more processors, a custom control defining a vehicle behavior that is approximate to either the upper or lower value of the safe operating range data; and controlling the self-driving behavior of the self-driving vehicle using the custom control”. Specifically, where although Attard et al. does teach controlling a vehicle in an autonomous mode based on driver behavior data and to not exceed limits such as speed limits in addition to other limits such as a following distance (see P[0016] of Attard et al.), Attard et al. does not expressly recite that “manual mode driving data” is determined to be outside of a safe operating range, and then creating a “custom control” that is “approximate to either the upper or lower value of the safe operating range data”. In other words, Attard et al. does not expressly recite that any driver behavior data is compared to any range and then creating a custom control based on the range, but instead simply recites use of the driver behavior data to control the vehicle, where control based on speed limits is not taught by Attard et al. as being the result of comparing the driver behavior data to the speed limits. Furthermore, while Pilutti et al. teaches the claimed limitations directed to a “safe operating range data” that is based on data from “one or more drivers” and teaches a “custom control” that is based on “manual mode driving data”, Pilutti et al. does not expressly recite that any vehicle behavior or control that is created using data from a vehicle driver is also limited using a threshold that is based on data from any other driver or drivers as claimed in the present application.
Furthermore, the Examiner could not find a clear motivation in the prior art to modify the prior art to teach the limitations not taught by Attard et al. and Pilutti et al. Therefore, the claims are allowable over the prior art, but are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and Double Patenting.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC G SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8AM-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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/ISAAC G SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights