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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: V. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0026] “breaking” should read “braking”
Paragraph [0031] “vehicle speed, Nv” should read “vehicle speed, V”
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Regarding claim 10, Claim 10 recites the limitation "an identification of the subject vehicle" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is a prior mention of “an identification of abnormal driving performed by a subject vehicle” in line 1 of claim 1 from which claim 10 depends, therefore it is unclear whether the identification of the subject vehicle in claim 10 is the same as the identification of abnormal driving performed by a subject vehicle in claim 1. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets that the identification of the subject vehicle in claim 10 is the same as the identification of abnormal driving performed by a subject vehicle in claim 1.
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 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,491,888. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
It is obvious that the narrower independent claim 1 of a system for verifying an identification of abnormal driving performed by a subject vehicle specified in U.S. Patent No. 12,491,888 covers the broader system for verifying an identification of abnormal driving performed by a subject vehicle in independent claim 1 of the instant application;
It is obvious that the narrower independent claim 12 of non-transitory machine-readable medium associated with a system having instructions stored therein specified in U.S. Patent No. 12,491,888 covers the broader non-transitory machine-readable medium associated with a system having instructions stored therein in independent claim 12 of the instant application;
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 of the instant application are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable because of their dependence on the rejected independent claims and further although they are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from limitations recited in claims 2-11 and 13-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,491,888.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The reason for indication of allowable subject matter over the prior art is similar as the reasons for allowance recited in the parent application number 17/959,773 (see Notice of Allowance 08/19/2025). This indication of allowable subject matter assumes that the 112(b) and double patenting rejections will be overcome by amendments and having an approved terminal disclaimer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Batts et al. (US2020/0238999A1) Discloses an apparatus which includes a processing circuit and a plurality of sensors connected to a vehicle, where at least one of the plurality of sensors is positioned on an undercarriage of the vehicle. The plurality of sensors can detect variations in a road on which the vehicle is traveling. The plurality of sensors can also generate information corresponding to the variations of the road. The plurality of sensors can also transmit the information corresponding to the variations in the road to the processing circuit. The information collected by the plurality of sensors may then be used to augment a driving capability of the vehicle.
Gierzynski et al. (US2024/0067164A1) Discloses an erratic driver detection system for a host vehicle. The system includes a sensor configured to measure a distance between the host vehicle and a detected neighboring vehicle, and output sensor data. The system also includes an electronic processor connected to the sensor and configured to build an expected driving behavior model and a target driving behavior model corresponding to the detected neighboring vehicle based on the sensor data. The target driving behavior model includes past, present, and predicted trajectories of the detected neighboring vehicle. The electronic processor is also configured to determine a difference between the target driving behavior model and the expected driving behavior model, identify an instance of erratic driving with respect to the detected neighboring vehicle based on the difference. In response to identifying the instance of erratic driving, the electronic processor controls the vehicle to perform a safety action.
Kapuria et al. (US2019/0202477A1) Discloses providing alerts to the driver based on a comparison between the driver's driving behavior and the general driving behavior. Driver presence is determined after which the driver is identified using identification attributes extracted. Further, data related to external environment to a vehicle is fetched. Based on the fetched external environment data an event is determined. Also, the driving behavior of the driver is compared with the general driving behavior for the vehicle. Based on the determined event and the deviations of driver's driving behavior from the general driving behavior, suggestive alert is generated for the driver of the vehicle. The intensity of the warning is varied based on severity of the event.
Kristinsson et al. (US2022/0363267A1) Discloses a vehicle that may determine that erratic vehicle behavior has been sensed, based on comparison of a sensed vehicle behavioral characteristic at a given location compared to a predefined expected value of the characteristic. The vehicle may further determine whether an environmental anomaly has been detected in association with the given location and classify the sensed erratic behavior based on whether the environmental anomaly was detected. Responsive to classifying the behavior as erratic based on determining no environmental anomaly was detected, the vehicle may report the erratic behavior to a remote server, along with the given location. The remote server may receive a plurality of such reports for a given location and update a classification of the behavior based on data indicated in the plurality of reports.
O’Herlihy et al. (US2019/0031097A1) Discloses a network system configured to facilitate a safe service coordination environment. The network system detects abnormal user states (e.g., sleepiness, inebriation, etc.) and provides corrective recommendations to those users. To do so, client devices executing an application send information associated with the service to the network system. The network system determines an aggregate set of service characteristics based on the aggregate telematics data. The network system also determines a provider profile for a provider providing service in the environment describing the deviation of the user's driving characteristics from the aggregate service characteristics. Based on the difference between the aggregate characteristics and the user profile, the network system determines the provider state using a state verification process. Based on the determined provider state, the network system determines a set of corrective recommendations and sends the corrective recommendations to the provider device.
Pendleton (US2022/0089190A1) Discloses devices, systems, and methods for enhanced obstacle detection. A vehicle may detect a neighboring vehicle traveling on a first road in a first traffic direction in a vicinity of the vehicle. The vehicle may collect data associated with the neighboring vehicle using one or more sensors of the vehicle. The vehicle may determine a status of the neighboring vehicle at a geolocation of the neighboring vehicle based on the collected data. The vehicle may determine that a first road anomaly occurred at the geolocation based on the status of the neighboring vehicle. The vehicle may set a first flag indicating the first road anomaly. The vehicle may determine to take a first action based on the first flag.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N RORIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (out of office every other Friday) 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
