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 1-20 have been examined.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,394,253. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,394,253, which will be referred to as Patent ‘253.
Claim 2 is fully encompassed by Claim 2 of Patent ‘253.
Claim 3 is fully encompassed by Claim 3 of Patent ‘253.
Claim 4 is fully encompassed by Claim 4 of Patent ‘253.
Claim 5 is fully encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘253.
Claim 6 is fully encompassed by Claim 6 of Patent ‘253.
Claim 7 is fully encompassed by Claim 7 of Patent ‘253.
Claim 8 is fully encompassed by Claim 8 of Patent ‘253.
Claim 9 is fully encompassed by Claim 9 of Patent ‘253.
Claim 10 is fully encompassed by Claim 10 of Patent ‘253.
Claim 11 is fully encompassed by Claim 11 of Patent ‘253.
Claim 12 is fully encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘253.
Claim 13 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘253.
Claim 14 is fully encompassed by Claim 14 of Patent ‘253.
Claim 15 is fully encompassed by Claim 15 of Patent ‘253.
Claim 16 is fully encompassed by Claim 16 of Patent ‘253.
Claim 17 is fully encompassed by Claim 17 of Patent ‘253.
Claim 18 is fully encompassed by Claim 18 of Patent ‘253.
Claim 19 is fully encompassed by Claim 19 of Patent ‘253.
Claim 20 is fully encompassed by Claim 20 of Patent ‘253.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art, but are rejected under Double Patenting.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art, but are rejected under Double Patenting.
The closest prior art is Lin et al. (2019/0034197), Fredman (2019/0016342) and Nascimento et al. (2018/0122237).
Lin et al. teaches improving the performance of a vehicle by determining whether Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) function updates are implemented by implementing software updates (Lin et al.; see P[0006] and P[0100]), which teaches providing updates to a vehicle “feature”. However, Lin et al. does not teach the claimed limitations directed to constructing datasets from before and after the update was implemented to determine an effectiveness or effectiveness score of the update using the datasets.
Fredman teaches determining an effectiveness of operation of a particular driver assist system or feature including determining a “score or effectiveness of operation of a particular driver assist system or feature” (Fredman; see P[0040] and P[0043]), however, Fredman is not directed to determining an effectiveness of an update to a vehicle feature as claimed in the present application.
Furthermore, “solving a problem” such as a “cryptopuzzle hash” in a process using vehicle data in a blockchain is taught by Nascimento et al. (2018/0122237) (Nascimento et al.; see P[0161], P[0256] and P[0263]-P[0267]), however the Examiner could not find any motivation in the prior art to modify Lin et al. and Fredman with the teachings of Nascimento et al. in order to teach all claimed limitations.
Therefore, the amended claims are allowable over the prior art, but are rejected under Double Patenting.
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