DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 09/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-26 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every prior art rejection as previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 12/13/2024. Therefore, each and every prior art rejection has been withdrawn. However, the double patenting rejection below remains in light of the amended claims (see below).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears that the Applicant inadvertently missed the claim objection as previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 12/13/2024. Therefore, it is restated here:
In Claim 9, line 4 recites “the device” (i.e., lacking clear antecedent basis). For purposes of examination, the limitation will be reasonably interpreted as - - the portable electronic device - - .
Examiner respectfully requests from Applicant verification and requires appropriate correction regarding this matter.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,145,215 B1, in view of Fischer (WO 2009/149770 A1).
Claim 1 of the instant application discloses the additional feature of detecting movement via an electromagnetic signal. Such a feature is known and used in the conventional prior art of record (see Fischer, Fig. 2, pages 12-13, disclosing a person carrying a portable device approaching an object (i.e., first direction), in which the portable device determines a collision course in the direction of an object ahead; Fig. 1, and pages 7-12, disclosing the portable device detects an approach/movement/direction of the portable device to the object; page 6, disclosing “the detection system has an ultrasound or infrared or light or radar unit with which a distance to an object can be measured”; pages 8-9, disclosing “[t]he detection system 5 serves to detect an approach of the portable device 1 to an object, for example a building or a lamppost or a road or a vehicle. The approach may be, for example, that a predetermined distance between an object and the portable device is exceeded. This can be checked, for example, with the aid of a distance measuring system 9. The distance measuring system may for example be in the form of an ultrasound, an infrared, a light, or a radar system, with which the distance between the portable device 1 and an object is detected”; for further support, see also page 14, Claim 5, disclosing “wherein the detection system (5) comprises an ultrasonic or an infrared or a light or a radar unit (9), with which a distance to the object (13) is measurable”). Accordingly, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such teachings, to provide for increased aid and accuracy when determining distance/position information, thereby providing an improved portable device for presenting information and outputting information (see Fischer, Fig. 2, pages 12-13; Fig. 1, and pages 5-14).
Examiner notes that the broader “non-transitory computer readable media” of Claim 1 in the instant application is anticipated by using the “method” in Claim 1 of corresponding U.S. Patent No. 11,145,215 B1 as an obvious variant.
Regarding “a second direction that is different than the first direction” of Claim 1 of the instant invention and “the information including directional information indicating directions to the first object” of the corresponding Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,145,215 B1, examiner notes that this difference is minor, since one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that “directions” indicates there is at least one direction that is different from the first direction.
Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight.
Claims 1, 12-13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims, 1, 14, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,441 B1, in view of Fischer.
Claim 1 of the instant application discloses the additional feature of detecting movement via an electromagnetic signal. Such a feature is known and used in the conventional prior art of record (see Fischer, Fig. 2, pages 12-13, disclosing a person carrying a portable device approaching an object (i.e., first direction), in which the portable device determines a collision course in the direction of an object ahead; Fig. 1, and pages 7-12, disclosing the portable device detects an approach/movement/direction of the portable device to the object; page 6, disclosing “the detection system has an ultrasound or infrared or light or radar unit with which a distance to an object can be measured”; pages 8-9, disclosing “[t]he detection system 5 serves to detect an approach of the portable device 1 to an object, for example a building or a lamppost or a road or a vehicle. The approach may be, for example, that a predetermined distance between an object and the portable device is exceeded. This can be checked, for example, with the aid of a distance measuring system 9. The distance measuring system may for example be in the form of an ultrasound, an infrared, a light, or a radar system, with which the distance between the portable device 1 and an object is detected”; for further support, see also page 14, Claim 5, disclosing “wherein the detection system (5) comprises an ultrasonic or an infrared or a light or a radar unit (9), with which a distance to the object (13) is measurable”). Accordingly, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such teachings, to provide for increased aid and accuracy when determining distance/position information, thereby providing an improved portable device for presenting information and outputting information (see Fischer, Fig. 2, pages 12-13; Fig. 1, and pages 5-14).
Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight.
EXAMINER’S NOTE: After careful review and consideration of each of the parent applications, the remaining parent applications are not given obviousness type double patenting rejections because they are narrower/differing in scope and/or include non-obvious elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Although Claim 1 contains allowable subject matter, Claims 1, 12-13, 15, and 17-19 are currently rejected under nonstatutory double patenting, as outlined above. The rejection may be overcome by Applicant filing a Terminal Disclaimer.
Examiner’s Note: The remaining dependent Claims 2-11, 14, 16, and 20-26 are objected to due to the deficiencies of the parent Claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M WALSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/KATHLEEN M WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482