DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is responsive to the following communication: Amended Claims and Remarks, filed on September 2, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case; Claims 1, 13, and 20 are independent claims; Claims 1, 13, and 20 are amended. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
2. In the Non-Final Rejection mailed on June 4, 2026, Claims 1-20 were rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,635,298, 11,898,860, and/or 12,253,372 (see Non-Final Rejection, pgs. 3-9). In the Remarks filed on September 2, 2026 (see pg. 8), Applicant requested that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until the claims have been allowed, thus a terminal disclaimer was not filed (nor have any arguments against the double patenting rejection been presented). While the Claim Amendments filed on September 2, 2026 appear to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, the pending claims are still rendered obvious by the above-noted patents. Examiner attempted to contact the applicant’s representative, Greg Lunt (Reg. No. 57,354) on September 23, 2026, leaving a voicemail stating that the double patenting rejection appeared to be the only remaining rejection and inquiring if a terminal disclaimer would be filed, but no response was received. Accordingly, the double patenting rejection is maintained.
3. In the Non-Final Rejection mailed on June 4, 2026, Claims 1-7, 11-18, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art of record (see Non-Final Rejection, pgs. 10-15; see also Examiner Interview Summary mailed on August 27, 2026). Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed on September 2, 2026 (pg. 9), in view of Amended Claims filed therewith, with respect to § 103 rejections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the § 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
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.
4. Claims 1-7, 11-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 12, 16, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,635,298 (hereinafter ‘298).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are obvious variations because instant independent Claim 1 corresponds to Claims 1 and 5 of ‘298 (the differences between these claims are illustrated below – while Claim 1 of ’298 recites “identifying a transportation task” and determining pick-up/drop-off location of the transportation task, Claim 1 of ‘298 recites that a determination is made whether the current location corresponds to a pick-up or a drop-off location of the transportation task, corresponding to “determining a current location for at least one vehicle,” of instant Claim 1; in addition, dependent Claim 5 of ‘298 recites unlocking a particular door at the current location; it is noted that amended limitation “in which passengers have used one or more vehicle doors for entering or exiting vehicles that are part of a dynamic transportation network that includes multiple different vehicles” of instant Claim 1 is still rendered obvious by “door usage events” and “dynamic transportation network” of Claim 1 of ‘298):
Instant Claim 1
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
* accessing one or more door usage events in a database of stored door usage events, wherein the database is populated with observed door opening or door closing events in which passengers have used one or more vehicle doors for entering or exiting vehicles that are part of a dynamic transportation network that includes multiple different vehicles;
* determining a current location for at least one vehicle of the vehicles that are part of the dynamic transportation network;
* determining, based on the current location of the vehicle and based on the stored door usage events, that at least one door on the vehicle is to be locked or unlocked; and
* generating a control signal to control a locking mechanism on at least one door of the vehicle
Claims 1 and 5 of ‘298
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
* identifying a transportation task within a dynamic transportation network;
* accessing a database of door closing event locations, wherein the database is populated from observed door closing events within the dynamic transportation network;
* determining location information specifying at least one of a pickup location and a drop-off location for the transportation task based at least in part on the database of door closing event locations, wherein determining location information further includes identifying a route to the pickup location or to a drop-off location that is based on the accessed door closing event locations; and
* providing the location information to a transportation provider computing device, wherein a transportation provider performs the transportation task that comprises at least one of: picking up a transportation requestor at the pickup location according to the determined route, or dropping off the transportation requestor at the drop-off location according to the determined route.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: unlocking at least one door locking mechanism on a side of a transportation provider vehicle at the at least one of the pickup location and the drop-off location, wherein the side of the transportation provider vehicle that is unlocked is based at least in part on the database of door closing event locations.
Instant independent Claim 13 similarly corresponds to Claims 12 and 16 of ‘298, and instant independent Claim 20 corresponds to Claim 20 of ‘298 and it would have been obvious to further limit the claim with limitations recited in Claims 5 or 16 of ‘298, as illustrated above. Instant dependent Claim 3 (and similarly, Claim 14) corresponds to Claim 5 of ‘298, and with respect to instant dependent Claims 2, 4-7, 11, and 12 (and similarly, Claims 15-18), while these claims do not appear to have a direct correspondence to the claims recited in ‘298, a skilled artisan would understand that these are apparent/obvious actions resulting from the claims of ‘298 (for example, a door can only be locked or unlocked – if a signal is sent to a particular door to unlock it, other doors are locked; a passenger cannot enter or leave a vehicle through a locked door, thus the obvious timing of the unlock signal of ‘298 would be to permit the passenger to enter/exit; there is nothing in ‘298 that prevents any type of vehicle, including an autonomous vehicle, from implementing the recited limitations; etc.).
5. Claims 8 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 12, and 16 of ‘298, in view of claims 1, 2, 12, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,898,860 (hereinafter ‘860).
With respect to instant dependent Claim 8 (and similarly, Claim 19), while the claims of ‘298 do not appear to recite “displaying a message on an internal display within the vehicle indicating which side to exit the vehicle,” a skilled artisan would understand that such modification would have been obvious in view of Claims 1 and 2 (and similarly, 12 and 13) of ‘860, which state that “generated recommendation is presented within a transportation application running on a mobile device associated with the transportation requestor.”
6. Claims 8-10 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of ‘298, in view of claims 1, 2, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,253,372 (hereinafter ‘372).
With respect to instant dependent Claim 8 (and similarly, Claim 19), while the claims of ‘298 do not appear to recite “displaying a message on an internal display within the vehicle indicating which side to exit the vehicle,” a skilled artisan would understand that such modification would have been obvious in view of Claims 1, 2, and 6 of ‘372, which state that “the generated recommendation further indicates which door is to be used for entry into or exit from a vehicle used for the transportation task.” With respect to instant dependent Claims 9 and 10, while the claims of ‘298 do not appear to recite “a current temporal state,” a skilled artisan would understand that such modification would have been obvious in view of Claims 3 and 4 of ‘372, which recite that “the indication of which door is to be used for entry into or exit from the vehicle used for the transportation task changes according to the current temporal state” and that “the current temporal state indicates at least one of: a current time of day, a current day of the week, a current week of month, or a holiday.”
Discussion of Prior Art
7. The pending claims are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, because the prior art of record does not appear to teach or disclose the combination of features as recited in independent claims, particularly with respect to “accessing one or more door usage events in a database of stored door usage events, wherein the database is populated with observed door opening or door closing events in which passengers have used one or more vehicle doors for entering or exiting vehicles that are part of a dynamic transportation network that includes multiple different vehicles; determining a current location for at least one vehicle of the vehicles that are part of the dynamic transportation network; determining, based on the current location of the vehicle and based on the stored door usage events, that at least one door on the vehicle is to be locked or unlocked; and generating a control signal to control a locking mechanism on at least one door of the vehicle” (see Non-Final Rejection mailed on June 4, 2026, pg. 11; see also Examiner Interview Summary mailed on August 27, 2026).
For example, the prior art of Ferguson et al. (US 2019/0033856 A1) is directed towards interacting with autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles. While Ferguson teaches determining a current location of the vehicle, where the vehicle is a part of a fleet, and opening an appropriate compartment when the vehicle reaches a given address, Ferguson does not appear to teach or suggest the “door usage events” corresponding to “door opening or door closing events in which passengers have used one or more vehicle doors for entering or exiting [multiple different] vehicles,” as required by amended Claim 1.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
