DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/10/2026 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1, 3-12, 14-21 are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/10/2026 has been entered.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1of U.S. Patent 11647358 B2. Although the conflicting claims are similar, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim scope are identical as listed as following.
US Pat. 11647358 B2
Application 18/193,169
Claim 1.
An electronic device comprising: a communicator comprising circuitry; a first sensor configured to detect movement information of the electronic device; a memory comprising: a first determination module configured to determine whether a user carries the electronic device, and a second determination module configured to determine a detecting method for detecting a user location; and a processor configured to: identify whether a user of the electronic device carries the electronic device based on the movement information of the electronic device obtained by the first sensor by using the first determination module, determine a detecting method for detecting location information of the user according to whether the user carries the electronic device by using the second determination module, based on the user being identified to carry the electronic device, determine a first detecting method for obtaining the location information of the user using at least one of the movement information of the electronic device or feature information of a first signal received from an access point (AP) via the communicator; and based on the user being identified to not carry the electronic device, determine a second detecting method for obtaining the location information of the user using feature information of a second signal received from at least one external device via the communicator.
Claims 1 and 12,
An electronic device comprising: a communicator comprising circuitry; a first sensor; memory storing one or more computer programs; and a processor communicatively coupled to the communicator, the first sensor, and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: identify whether a user of the electronic device carries the electronic device based on movement information of the electronic device obtained by the first sensor, and
wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the user being identified to carry the electronic device, obtain the location information of the user using feature information of a second signal received from at least one external device along a first path and a second path via the communicator, wherein one of the first path and the second path includes a path in which a part or an entirety of the second signal is reflected by or transmitted through the user, and wherein the obtained location information of the user includes information related to whether the user is present within a threshold distance from the electronic device. (and similar limittions)
Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before. In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963). Since one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention would have been made obvious to use a location determination scheme with an external device to perform the similar data transfer/retrieval process in order to improve data accuracy; thus, the claims are similar in scope which requires a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) to overcome this rejection.
All dependent claims based on the rejected independent claims are also rejected.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights