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 claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,339,127 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following:
The reference claim 1 and the examined application claim 2 share the following common features: both systems comprise at least one processor and at least one machine-readable medium containing instructions executed by the processor. They both use a “first computing system” interacting with a “second computing system”, wherein both computing systems are associated with an autonomous vehicle. Both systems include obtaining request data that includes starting point, and end point, and an indication that the trip will be handled by an autonomous vehicle. The first computing system calculates an initial route and time, and receives a different route and time estimated from the second computing system. The first computing system updates its data by creating a corrected route and corrected time based on the autonomous vehicle’s actual estimated route and arrival time.
The only difference is that the reference claim focuses on item delivery while claim 2 focuses on passenger transportation. The reference claim uses terms like “delivery origin location” and “first calculated completion time,” “first corrected trip completion time”, while claim 2 uses terms like “passenger pickup location” and “first calculated passenger pickup time,” “first corrected passenger pickup time.” In addition, the reference claim communicates the updated data to an electronic device associated with delivery request user, while claim 2 communicates the updated data to a passenger interface associated with the passenger transportation request. However, swapping the act of delivering an item or package for the act of transporting a passenger is a routine, predictable substitution. It would have been obvious to modify a delivery routing system to accommodate passengers instead of packages.
These make the claims at issue are not identical, but at least claim 2 is not patentably distinct from the reference claim 1 because the currently examined claim 2 would have been obvious over the reference claim 1 of the patent.
For at least the reasons set forth above, the examined application claims 2-21 would have been obvious over the reference claims 1, 10, and 16 of the cited patent No. ‘127 B2.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant disclosure. The following patent documents are cited in the PTO-892 to further show the state of the art in general: US-20240132101-A1, US-20220396288-A1, US-20200226857-A1, and EP-3671688-A1.
It is noted none of the prior art has been found discloses or even suggests the limitations as claimed.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ramya P Burgess, can be reached on (571) 272-6011.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights