DETAILED ACTION
Claim 1 is presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. 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. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,367,247. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of US Patent 12,367,247
Claim 1 of US Patent Application 19/277,328
A method for segmenting mobile entities, comprising:
A method for segmenting mobile entities, comprising:
at one or more computer systems coupled to a packet-based network and including or having access to electronic storage media storing therein events associated with mobile entities communicating with the packet-based network using signals, each of the events having one or more features;
at one or more computer systems coupled to a packet-based network and including or having access to electronic storage media storing therein events associated with mobile entities communicating with the packet-based network using signals, each of the events having one or more features;
determining a first set of mobile entities and a second set of mobile entities based at least on predefined constraints including first constraints and second constraints, each mobile entity in the first set of mobile entities satisfying the first constraints and the second constraints, each mobile entity in the second set of mobile entities satisfying the first constraints but not the second constraints, wherein the first constraints include a condition that, for each location of a set of predefined locations, a frequency of a mobile entity being detected at the each location is less than a preset maximum frequency, and wherein the second constraints include a condition that a frequency of a mobile entity having been detected at any of the set of predefined locations is greater than or equal to a preset overall frequency;
determining a first set of mobile entities and a second set of mobile entities based at Least on predefined constraints including first constraints and second constraints, each mobile entity in the first set of mobile entities satisfying the first constraints and the second constraints, each mobile entity in the second set of mobile entities satisfying the first constraints but not the second constraints, wherein the first constraints include a condition that, for each location of a set of predefined locations, a frequency of a mobile entity being detected at the each location is less than a preset maximum frequency, and wherein the second constraints include a condition that a frequency of a mobile entity having been detected at any of the set of predefined locations is greater than or equal to a preset overall frequency;
identifying a feature set related to a mobile segment, the feature set including a plurality of features;
identifying a feature set related to a mobile segment, the feature set including a plurality of features;
determining a plurality of feature gains corresponding, respectively, to the plurality of features related to the mobile segment, wherein a respective feature gain corresponding to a respective feature is related to a respective first probability of finding the respective feature in any of a set of events associated with mobile entities in the first set of mobile entities and a second probability of finding the respective feature in any of a set of events associated with mobile entities in the second set of mobile entities; and
determining a plurality of feature gains corresponding, respectively, to the plurality of features related to the mobile segment, wherein a respective feature gain corresponding to a respective feature is related to a respective first probability of finding the respective feature in any of a set of events associated with mobile entities in the first set of mobile entities and a second probability of finding the respective feature in any of a set of events associated with mobile entities in the second set of mobile entities; and
determine a set of mobile entities to add to the mobile segment based at least on the plurality of feature gains, and for each particular feature of the plurality of features, frequency of events associated with each of the set of mobile entities and having the particular feature.
determining a set of mobile entities to add to the mobile segment based at least on the plurality of feature gains, and for each particular feature of the plurality of features, frequency of events associated with each of the set of mobile entities and having the particular feature.
It is noted that the claimed limitations of claim 1 of Patent Application 19/277,328 are almost identical to that of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,367,247 except the limitations bolded above. It appears to be proper to apply the judicially created doctrine of obvious-type double patenting to the claims at issue.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 1 would become allowable if the obvious-type double patenting rejection is overcome. As noted above, this rejection can be overturned by filing a terminal disclaimer.
Claim 1 would be considered allowable since the prior art of record fails to disclose each and every element of the Applicant's claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to teach and/or suggest “determining a first set of mobile entities and a second set of mobile entities based at least on predefined constraints including first constraints and second constraints, each mobile entity in the first set of mobile entities satisfying the first constraints and the second constraints, each mobile entity in the second set of mobile entities satisfying the first constraints but not the second constraints, wherein the first constraints include a condition that, for each location of a set of predefined locations, a frequency of a mobile entity being detected at the each location is less than a preset maximum frequency, and wherein the second constraints include a condition that a frequency of a mobile entity having been detected at any of the set of predefined locations is greater than or equal to a preset overall frequency;
determining a plurality of feature gains corresponding, respectively, to the plurality of features related to the mobile segment, wherein a respective feature gain corresponding to a respective feature is related to a respective first probability of finding the respective feature in any of a set of events associated with mobile entities in the first set of mobile entities and a second probability of finding the respective feature in any of a set of events associated with mobile entities in the second set of mobile entities; and
determine a set of mobile entities to add to the mobile segment based at least on the plurality of feature gains, and for each particular feature of the plurality of features, frequency of events associated with each of the set of mobile entities and having the particular feature”.
The preceding limitations, when combined with the rest of the limitations recited in claim 1 results in a combination of elements that is both novel and unobvious over the prior art of record.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUAWEN A PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-5215. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Fri 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/HUAWEN A PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights