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. 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 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,911,694 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in ‘694 are narrower than the present claims but cover all of the limitations that are presented in the current claims . 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-12 are 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. With regard to the independent claims, they each states, “a non-stretchable, fixed length, flexible bridge.” It is unclear how something cannot stretch yet at the same time is also flexible. All dependent claims are rejected as depending from a previously rejected claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 disclosed 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. 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. Claim s 1-3, 5-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0078670 to Oh in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0230505 to van der Laan and US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0319953 to Townley . With regard to claim 1 , Oh discloses a mobile video gaming system comprising: a smart device, said smart device presents a fixed length greater than its width, said smart device provides a first combination data/power connector (figs. 2A; 0045; 0055) ; a first video game control module provides a second combination data/power connector, said second combination data/power connector is in electronic communication with said first combination data/power connector, thereby facilitating passage of data and power between said first video game control module and said smart device (fig. 2A; 0055; 0057); a second video game control module in electronic communication with said first video game control module (fig. 2A; 0046); and a non-stretchable, fixed length bridge disposed between and secured directly to each said first video game control module and said second video game control module, wherein said first video game control module and said second video game control module are coupled together by said Bridge forms a video game controller (fig. 2A as shown). Oh does not appear to be explicitly clear about an operating system detection circuit. However, such is taught by van der Laan (0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of van der Laan with that of Oh in order to ensure that the system was compatible with the software ( See van der Laan at 0033). Oh does not appear to be explicitly clear about the bridge being flexible. However, Townley teaches such (0094). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the bridge out of flexible material to make it less susceptible to breaking. With regard to claim 2 , Oh discloses in which upon securement of said Bridge to each said first video game control module and said second video game control module, neither said Bridge, nor said first video game control module, nor said second video game control module facilitate any adjustment to accommodate a length of a second smart device different than said fixed length of said smart device (fig. 2A) . With regard to claim 3 , Oh discloses in which said first video game control module further provides a power input port and an audio signal port, said power input port facilitates transfer of power from an external charger to a battery of said smart device, and said audio signal port facilitates transfer of audio signals between an audio processor of said smart device and an external audio device and wherein said second video game control module provides a hinged hatch and a latch, said hinged hatch interacts with said latch to confine said smart device within said first video game control module and said second video control module (fig. 2A; fig4B; 0026; 0033). Claims 5-7 and 9-11 are similar to claims 1-3 and are rejected in like manner. With regard to the difference in claim 5, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that a USB connection has multiple contacts. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the Notice of References Cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Jay Liddle whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1226 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9-5 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Dmitry Suhol can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-4430 . 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. /Jay Trent Liddle/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715