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 .
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 10, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been entered into the record. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. Patent no. 12346986 (“Parent Application”). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claim(s) read “from the current location to at the second pickup location.” The language is grammatically ambiguous; “to at” is grammatically meaningless. 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 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 19-20 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.
Claims1, 6-8, 15, and 19-20 recite the limitation "the cumulative number of provider devices for the second pickup" and “the updated cumulative number of provider devices for the second pickup location.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 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. The claim(s) read “a route from the current location to at the second pickup location.” It is unclear what is being claimed. Claim 1 establishes both a current location of the requestor device and an additional current location of the additional requestor device. However, the map is displayed via the additional requestor device’s interface. It is unclear which location is intended.
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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1, 4-5, 8, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12346986 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Claims of U.S. Patent No. 12346986 (issue date 06/18/2025
Claims of the instant application (dated 06/30/2025)
Claims 1, 4, 8, 10Claims 1Claims 1, 10Claims 1, 5Claims 1, 5
Claims 1, 4, 10
Claims 1, 8, 15Claims 2, 9, 6Claims 3, 10, 17Claims 4, 11, 18Claims 5 and 12Claims 6-7, 13-14, 19-20
The chart above maps claims of the instant application to corresponding claims of U.S. Patent 12346986 that are patentably indistinct, though not identical. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the slight differences between the claim language of the corresponding claims as being directed towards intention, slight variations in terminology, or obvious variants of corresponding claim elements, and therefore these claims are not patentably distinct from one another despite these slight differences.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arif Ullah, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0161. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 5:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell, can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”)./Arif Ullah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights