DETAILED ACTION
Claims 3-12 are presented for consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claims 3 and 8, “on the on the particular device” should be corrected as “on the particular device”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
3. Claims 3-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,711,475, and claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,000,893. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patents anticipate the claims of the current application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. It appears claim 8 would reasonably be interpreted by one of ordinary skill as a system of software per se, failing to fall within a statutory category of invention. Applicants’ disclosure contains no explicit and deliberate definition for the terms “one or more central processing units”, and in the context of the disclosure and claims in question, one of ordinary skill would reasonably interpret these terms as software applications. As such, the system of software alone is not a machine, it is clearly not a process, manufacture nor composition of matter [ Please see MPEP 2106 ].
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 3-12 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “traffic congression event” in claims 3-12 is used by the claim to mean “traffic congestion event” while the accepted meaning is “traffic congestion event.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6-9, 11, and 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Cobbold [ US Patent Application No 2008/0077309 ].
8. As per claim 3, Cobbold discloses the invention as claimed including a method for creating a situational network [ i.e. allows commuters to join commuter groups ], wherein the situational network is formed in response to a traffic congression event in a particular geographical area, and wherein the situational network is created for delivering information to selected user nodes based in at least part on the situational network [ i.e. users may share commuting routes, traffic updates, road conditions ] [ Abstract; and paragraphs 0007, and 0024 ], the method comprising:
a) maintaining a database comprising: (i) a plurality of user nodes associated with a plurality of user devices, and (ii) geographical location data for the plurality of user nodes [ i.e. one or more databases containing information, user profiles database, location profiles database ] [ Figure 6; and paragraph 0039 ];
b) establishing an event node associated with the traffic congression event in the particular geographical area [ i.e. the proximity information may enable users heading to an event to communicate with each other before getting to the event to ease tension associated with congestion as users approach the event ] [ paragraphs 0029 ];
c) creating, based on the database, a projection of the plurality of user nodes to be joined to the event node, the projection comprising a subset of the plurality of user nodes associated with a subset of the plurality of user devices [ i.e. determine if there is a commuter group associated with a particular event that the user is planning to attend, determine whether a particular commuter group should be selected as a candidate group ] [ paragraph 0048 ], wherein the projection is created based at least in part on respective distances of devices of the subset of the plurality of user devices from the traffic congression event [ i.e. proximity or vicinity ] [ paragraphs 0029, and 0033 ];
d) generating for display, on a particular device of the plurality of user devices, navigation information for a vehicle travelling from a start geographical location to an end geographical location [ i.e. user’s automobile navigation system, the start and end points ] [ paragraphs 0009, 0026, and 0046 ], wherein the navigation information comprises a representation of a travel route from the start geographical location to the end geographical location [ i.e. commuting route ] [ Figure 1; paragraphs 0021, and 0055 ];
e) identifying a plurality of route portions of the travel route [ i.e. small number of routes that they will take to get into the city ] [ paragraphs 0005, 0020, and 0021 ];
f) accessing, for each respective route portion of the plurality of route portions: respective vehicle speed data of at least one respective vehicle travelling along the respective route portion [ i.e. speed information ] [ paragraphs 0005, 0028, and 0046 ], wherein the vehicle speed data is gathered from the subset of the plurality of user devices [ i.e. candidate commuter group to be presented to the user ] [ paragraphs 0048, 0050, and 0055 ];
g) adjusting the travel route based at least in part on accessing the respective vehicle speed data of each route portion of the plurality of route portions of the travel route [ i.e. provide the users with suggested route advice to enable the group members to optimize their commute ] [ paragraphs 0024, 0051, and 0054 ];
h) transmitting, to the particular device, a message indicative of the event node [ i.e. commuters may alert each other of particular road hazards ] [ paragraphs 0029, and 0033 ]; and
i) causing a modification of the display of the navigation information on the on the particular device based on the adjusting the travel route [ i.e. the users may also provided with live video feed of portions of their route or their group of alternate routes to enable the users to determine which route is more likely to provide a better way to travel ] [ paragraphs 0056, and 0058 ].
9. As per claim 4, Cobbold discloses wherein traffic congression event corresponds to a detected traffic accident [ i.e. accident reports ] [ paragraphs 0007, and 0024 ].
As per claim 6, Cobbold discloses providing the particular device with a user interface that is configured to share at least one message related to the traffic congression event with at least one device of the plurality of user devices [ i.e. message with other user terminals for real-time text based communication ] [ paragraphs 0007, 0029, and 0031 ].
As per claim 7, Cobbold discloses wherein the modification of the display of the navigation information on the particular device is further based on current location and known destination associated with the particular device [ i.e. process traffic information updates, and create traffic estimates for commuters in particular commuting groups ] [ paragraphs 0038, and 0055 ].
As per claims 8, 9, 11, and 12, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 3, 4, 6, and 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5, and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cobbold [ US Patent Application No 2008/0077309 ], in view of Nagendran [ US Patent No 6,731,940 ].
As per claim 5, Cobbold does not specifically disclose wherein traffic congression event corresponds to a weather event causing congression. Nagendran discloses wherein traffic congression event corresponds to a weather event causing congression [ i.e. local weather ] [ col 6, lines 16-18 ]. It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teaching of Cobbold and Nagendran because the teaching of Nagendran would enable to offer a variety of traffic services to mobile device users traveling in the area [ Nagendran, col 6, lines 66-col 7, lines 2 ].
As per claim 10, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hashizume [ US Patent Application No 2006/0167626 ] discloses navigation system for determination of traffic congestion on a road and for calculation of an alternative route to a destination
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6 PST.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-2701684. 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.
/DUSTIN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights