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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on April 14, 2025. Claims 1-12 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant's Amendments dated April 14, 2025, examiner withdraws the objection to the specification and the objection to claim 5. However, examiner maintains provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection and the previous prior art rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references of Abe, Okada, and Kanemoto fail to teach or suggest at least “the controller determines whether or not the electronic device is mobile, and in a case where the electronic device is determined to be mobile, the controller excludes the electronic device from calculating the location of the information processing device”. See Response at pages 8-9. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Abe discloses (“an obtaining unit configured to obtain information about a usage type of the apparatus” (Col. 51, lines 49-53), (“wherein the second obtaining unit is configured to select, in a case where the plurality of external apparatuses includes a first external apparatus of which the usage type is stationary and a second external apparatus of which the usage type is not stationary, the first external apparatus and to not select the second external apparatus” (claim 2), and “the wearable device 1404 determines the Bluetooth® Low Energy advertiser devices to be used for the estimation of the relative position based on the field intensities and the usage types” (Col. 26, lines 32-35)). Examiner notes that "an obtaining unit configured to obtain information about a usage type of the apparatus" and “the second obtaining unit is configured to select, in a case where the plurality of external apparatuses includes a first external apparatus of which the usage type is stationary and a second external apparatus of which the usage type is not stationary, the first external apparatus and to not select the second external apparatus” are well-known in the art and correspond directly to the claimed limitation “the controller determines whether or not the electronic device is mobile, and in a case where the electronic device is determined to be mobile, the controller excludes the electronic device from calculating the location of the information processing device”. Therefore, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasoning.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 5, and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 8, and 16 of Application No. 18/149,841 as follows:
Current Application’s claims
Application’s claims
1
1
5
8
12
16
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claims include a search result acquisition unit, a wireless communication unit, a direction information acquisition unit, and a controller, however with greater detail than provided in the instant application (e.g. a controller displaying, on a display, a list of a plurality of the electronic devices found by the search, and the controller executing processing of deciding a display priority order). Further, the instant information processing device is inherently included in the claimed structure as claimed. Reference in 103 rejection below teaches the limitation and therefore it is obvious to modify the application to include the limitation(s) in this application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to ATA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically discloses as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 11224003 (hereinafter, "Abe"; previously of record) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 10914595 (hereinafter, "Okada"; previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Abe discloses an information processing device wirelessly communicating with an electronic device via a wireless communication unit (“the information processing apparatus and the communication apparatus are connected by using a Bluetooth® Low Energy communication” (Col. 2, lines 2-4)), the information processing device comprising:
a search result acquisition unit acquiring information of a search result about the electronic device by a search via the wireless communication unit (“an obtaining unit configured to obtain information about a usage type of the apparatus” (Col. 1, lines 28-29) and “The information processing apparatus 101 can recognize the presence of the communication apparatus 151 by the short-range wireless communication unit 110 receiving the advertising information transmitted from the short-range wireless communication unit 157” (Col. 17, lines 47-51));
a direction information acquisition unit acquiring direction information representing a direction in which the electronic device found by the search exists (“a first obtaining unit configured to obtain information about an angle between the external apparatus and the apparatus, based on the obtained advertising information” (Col. 51, lines 1-4)), based on short-range wireless communication with the electronic device via the wireless communication unit (“The information processing apparatus 101 can recognize the presence of the communication apparatus 151 by the short-range wireless communication unit 110 receiving the advertising information transmitted from the short-range wireless communication unit 157” (Col. 17, lines 47-51));
a controller (“The CPU 103 is a system control unit and controls the entire information processing apparatus 101” (Col. 3, lines 59-60)) acquiring the location information of the information processing device specified based on the direction information and the map information (see at least Fig. 16, #S1605-#S1611), and displaying information representing a location of the information processing device in a map image corresponding to the map information, based on the location information of the information processing device (“a display control unit configured to display a guide screen indicating a position of the apparatus on a display unit by using the position information about the apparatus obtained by the second obtaining unit” (Col. 1, lines 28-29)), wherein the controller determines whether or not the electronic device is mobile (“an obtaining unit configured to obtain information about a usage type of the apparatus” (Col. 51, lines 49-53)), and in a case where the electronic device is determined to be mobile, the controller excludes the electronic device from calculating the location of the information processing device (“wherein the second obtaining unit is configured to select, in a case where the plurality of external apparatuses includes a first external apparatus of which the usage type is stationary and a second external apparatus of which the usage type is not stationary, the first external apparatus and to not select the second external apparatus” (claim 2) and “the wearable device 1404 determines the Bluetooth® Low Energy advertiser devices to be used for the estimation of the relative position based on the field intensities and the usage types” (Col. 26, lines 32-35)).
However, Abe does not explicitly teach
a map information acquisition unit acquiring map information including location information of the electronic device found by the search.
Okada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
a map information acquisition unit acquiring map information including location information of the electronic device found by the search (“The map information storage unit 72 stores map information of a range that can be held in the ROM 16 of the wrist terminal 1” (Col. 7, lines 18-20)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Abe with the teachings of Okada in order to provide map information; see Okada at least at (Col. 1, line 20).
Regarding claim 3, Abe discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. Additionally Abe discloses wherein the controller displays information representing a direction of the information processing device in the map image (“the wearable device 1404 displays the current relative positions of the own device and the Bluetooth® Low Energy advertiser devices on the screen of the application 3201” (Col. 33, lines 17-20) and Fig. 8A).
Regarding claim 4, Abe discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. However, Abe does not explicitly teach wherein the controller executes rotation processing of the map image, based on a direction of the information processing device.
Okada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the controller executes rotation processing of the map image, based on a direction of the information processing device (“The gyro sensor detects angular rates in three-axial directions in the wrist terminal 1, and outputs information indicating the detected angular rates to the control unit” (Col. 4, lines 34-36)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Abe with the teachings of Okada in order to detect angular rates; see Okada at least at (Col. 4, line 4).
Regarding claim 5, Abe discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. However, Abe does not explicitly teach wherein when an image of a first electronic device and an image of a second electronic device located at a location father from the information processing device than the first electronic device are displayed as an image of the electronic device in the map image, the controller executes highlight display to highlight the image of the first electronic device, compared with the image of the second electronic device.
Kanemoto, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein
when an image of a first electronic device and an image of a second electronic device located at a location father from the information processing device than the first electronic device are displayed as an image of the electronic device in the map image, the controller executes highlight display to highlight the image of the first electronic device, compared with the image of the second electronic device (“the controller 100 determines whether the distance, which is acquired in step S404, falls within a threshold (for example, within a radius of 5 m from a location of the terminal device 10) (step S406). If the distance falls within the threshold, the controller 100 shows the name of the multi-function peripheral 30 with a large icon in the list (step S406; Yes→step S408). If the distance exceeds the threshold, the controller 100 shows the name of the multi-function peripheral 30 with a small icon in the list (step S406; No→step S410” (Col. 26, lines 11-20)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Abe with the teachings of Kanemoto in order to allow a user to easily acknowledge a device implementing a function desired by the user; see Kanemoto at least at (Col. 1, lines 18-19).
Regarding claim 6, Abe discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. However, Abe does not explicitly teach wherein the controller executes correction processing of correcting the location of the information processing device in the map image, based on input information from a user.
Okada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the controller executes correction processing of correcting the location of the information processing device in the map image, based on input information from a user (“The map update control unit 57 updates the map information already stored in the removable medium 31 to newly acquired map information” (Col. 18, lines 12-15) and Fig. 4, #13, #11, and #57-#58).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Abe with the teachings of Okada in order to update the map information; see Okada at least at (Col. 18, line 13).
Regarding claim 8, Abe discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. However, Abe does not explicitly teach further comprising:
a map information generator executing generation processing for the map information, based on an editing by a user.
Okada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
further comprising: a map information generator executing generation processing for the map information, based on an editing by a user (“ the user who owns the portable map transmitting apparatus 2 together with the wrist terminal 1 can update the map information in the wrist terminal 1” (Col. 3, lines 39-41)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Abe with the teachings of Okada in order to provide map information; see Okada at least at (Col. 1, line 20).
Regarding claim 9, Abe discloses the information processing device according to claim 8. However, Abe does not explicitly teach wherein the controller transmits the map information generated by the map information generator to another information processing device via the wireless communication unit.
Okada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the controller transmits the map information generated by the map information generator to another information processing device via the wireless communication unit (“The portable map transmitting apparatus 2 transmits map information corresponding to the map range of the second map information in the third map information to the wrist terminal 1” (Col. 4, lines 1-3) and Fig. 2, #21).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Abe with the teachings of Okada in order to provide map information; see Okada at least at (Col. 1, line 20).
Regarding claim 10, Abe discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. Additionally Abe discloses wherein the controller executes processing of displaying a history of movement of the information processing device in the map image (“The wearable device 1404 can display a position guide screen such as illustrated in FIG. 20A based on the current position information about the wearable device 1404 and map information stored by the navigation application 2001 in advance” (Col. 37, lines 15-19) and Figs. 20A and 20B).
Regarding claim 11, Abe discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. Additionally Abe discloses wherein when another electronic device that is not included in the map information is detected (“the information processing apparatus 101 detects the direction of the communication apparatus 151 by using advertising information transmitted from the short-range wireless communication unit 157 in the communication apparatus 151” (Col. 10, lines 57-61)), the controller executes processing of displaying an image of the another electronic device on the map image, based on the direction information of the another electronic device, the map information, and the location information of the information processing device (“ The wearable device 1404 can display a position guide screen such as illustrated in FIG. 20B based on the current position information and current altitude information about the wearable device 1404 and map information stored by the navigation application 2004 in advance” (Col. 37, lines 40-44) and Figs. 20A and 20B).
Regarding claim 12, Abe discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program (“the present invention can also be realized by a computer of a system or apparatus that reads out and executes computer executable instructions (e.g., one or more programs) recorded on a storage medium (which may also be referred to more fully as a ‘non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’)” (Col. 37, lines 15-19)), the program causing a computer to function as:
a wireless communication unit wirelessly communicating with an electronic device (“The short-range wireless communication unit 110 is a component for wirelessly connecting to an apparatus, such as the communication apparatus 151, at a short distance and performing data communication” (Col. 5, lines 4-6));
a search result acquisition unit acquiring information of a search result about the electronic device by a search via the wireless communication unit (“ an obtaining unit configured to obtain information about a usage type of the apparatus” (Col. 1, lines 28-29) and “The information processing apparatus 101 can recognize the presence of the communication apparatus 151 by the short-range wireless communication unit 110 receiving the advertising information transmitted from the short-range wireless communication unit 157” (Col. 17, lines 47-51));
a direction information acquisition unit acquiring direction information representing a direction in which the electronic device found by the search exists (“a first obtaining unit configured to obtain information about an angle between the external apparatus and the apparatus, based on the obtained advertising information” (Col. 51, lines 1-4)), based on short-range wireless communication with the electronic device via the wireless communication unit (“The information processing apparatus 101 can recognize the presence of the communication apparatus 151 by the short-range wireless communication unit 110 receiving the advertising information transmitted from the short-range wireless communication unit 157” (Col. 17, lines 47-51));
a controller (“The CPU 103 is a system control unit and controls the entire information processing apparatus 101” (Col. 3, lines 59-60)) acquiring the location information of an information processing device specified based on the direction information and the map information (see at least Fig. 16, #S1605-#S1611), and displaying information representing a location of the information processing device in a map image corresponding to the map information, based on the location information of the information processing device (“a display control unit configured to display a guide screen indicating a position of the apparatus on a display unit by using the position information about the apparatus obtained by the second obtaining unit” (Col. 51, lines 49-53)), wherein the controller determines whether or not the electronic device is mobile (“an obtaining unit configured to obtain information about a usage type of the apparatus” (Col. 51, lines 49-53)), and in a case where the electronic device is determined to be mobile, the controller excludes the electronic device from calculating the location of the information processing device (“wherein the second obtaining unit is configured to select, in a case where the plurality of external apparatuses includes a first external apparatus of which the usage type is stationary and a second external apparatus of which the usage type is not stationary, the first external apparatus and to not select the second external apparatus” (claim 2) and “the wearable device 1404 determines the Bluetooth® Low Energy advertiser devices to be used for the estimation of the relative position based on the field intensities and the usage types” (Col. 26, lines 32-35)).
However, Abe does not explicitly teach
a map information acquisition unit acquiring map information including location information of the electronic device found by the search.
Okada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
a map information acquisition unit acquiring map information including location information of the electronic device found by the search (“The map information storage unit 72 stores map information of a range that can be held in the ROM 16 of the wrist terminal 1” (Col. 7, lines 18-20)); and
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Abe with the teachings of Okada in order to provide map information; see Okada at least at (Col. 1, line 20).
Regarding claim 13, Abe discloses The information processing device according to claim 1. Additionally Abe discloses wherein the controller further acquires azimuth information (“The wearable device 1404 then obtains direction information (information about the angle) about the Bluetooth® Low Energy advertiser device.” (Col. 32, lines 33-35)), and the controller superimposes a predetermined azimuth image over the map image based on the azimuth information (“During traveling, the acute angle portion of the current position display 2002 indicates the traveling direction. FIG. 20A illustrates the state during traveling” (Col. 37, lines 28-30)).
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 11224003 (hereinafter, "Abe"; previously of record) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 10914595 (hereinafter, "Okada"; previously of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. Pat. No. 11831836 (hereinafter, "Kanemoto"; previously of record).
Regarding claim 2, Abe discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. However, Abe does not explicitly teach wherein the controller changes a display form of an image of the electronic device in the map image according to a status of the electronic device.
Kanemoto, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the controller changes a display form of an image of the electronic device in the map image according to a status of the electronic device (“The controller 100 changes the display mode on the basis of the operation status of the friend-registered multi-function peripheral 30…the controller 100 acquires the operation statuses of the multi-function peripherals 30 as the members of the group, and changes appearance of the icon of the multi-function peripheral 30 capable of handling the request by the user from the icon representing the multi-function peripheral 30 that cannot handle the request by the user according to whether the multi-function peripheral 30 operates normally” (Col. 27, lines 11-23)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Abe with the teachings of Kanemoto in order to allow a user to easily acknowledge a device implementing a function desired by the user; see Kanemoto at least at (Col. 1, lines 18-19).
Regarding claim 7, Abe discloses the information processing device according to claim 6. However, Abe does not explicitly teach wherein after executing, based on the input information from the user, the correction processing of excluding a predetermined electronic device of an electronic device group including the electronic device from an acquisition target of the location information of the information processing device based on the direction information, the controller sets the predetermined electronic device as an exclusion target device in the correction processing.
Kanemoto, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein after executing, based on the input information from the user, the correction processing of excluding a predetermined electronic device of an electronic device group including the electronic device from an acquisition target of the location information of the information processing device based on the direction information, the controller sets the predetermined electronic device as an exclusion target device in the correction processing (“on the talk screen of the group, the controller 100 may cause the multi-function peripheral 30 that does not operate normally to temporarily leave (hide from) the group” (Col. 27, lines 30-33) and Fig. 2, #140).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Abe with the teachings of Kanemoto in order to allow a user to easily acknowledge a device implementing a function desired by the user; see Kanemoto at least at (Col. 1, lines 18-19).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ALHARBI whose telephone number is 313-446-6621. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8406.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM M ALHARBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663