DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 12, 13, and 15-17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, which includes claims 1-20 in light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, in the reply filed on 12/22/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a memory of the electronic device.” It seems that the claim should recite “in a memory of the electronic device.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the one or mor other user interface elements” in line 5. It seems that the claim should recite “the one or more other user interface elements”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “diminished as a second combination” in line 7. It seems that the claim should recite “diminished as a function of a second combination”.
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.
Claims 7-11 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the user preference sensory preference score". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites similar language. Claims 8-11 inherit the deficiencies of the claim(s) from which they depend and are similarly rejected.
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 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/438,596 (Reference Application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as the claims of the reference application anticipate or render obvious the claims of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/438,589 (Reference Application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as the claims of the reference application anticipate or render obvious the claims of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshikawa et al. (US 2020/0184843, hereinafter “Yoshikawa”), cited by applicant.
In regards to claim 1, Yoshikawa teaches a method in an electronic device, the method comprising:
presenting, by one or more processors on a user interface, a plurality of user interface elements, with each user interface element of the plurality of user interface elements including components catering to different sensory perceptions from other user interface elements of the plurality of user interface elements (Yoshikawa; pars [0033]-[0035]; Figs. 10, 13);
measuring, by one or more sensors, reactions of a user of the electronic device to the plurality of user interface elements (Yoshikawa; par [0033]); and
determining, by the one or more processors from the reactions, a user sensory preference reaction score (Yoshikawa; pars [0033]-[0035]).
In regards to claim 5, Yoshikawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of user interface elements comprises one or more of:
user input controls (Yoshikawa; pars [0089]-[0090]; Fig. 14);
navigational elements (Yoshikawa; pars [0089]-[0090]; Fig. 14); and/or
containers.
In regards to claim 6, Yoshikawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of user interface elements comprises text, with the text of at least one user interface element enhancing a characteristic associated with at least one user sensory element and diminishing another characteristic associated with at least one other user sensory element (Yoshikawa; Figs. 14-16).
In regards to claim 7, Yoshikawa teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising associating the user preference sensory preference score with a dominant sensory profile associated with the user of the electronic device a memory of the electronic device (Yoshikawa; pars [0033]-[0035], [0050], [0054]).
In regards to claim 8, Yoshikawa teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising:
detecting, by the one or more sensors, another user using the electronic device (Yoshikawa; pars [0048]-[0050], [0054]);
repeating the presenting the plurality of user interface elements (Yoshikawa; pars [0050], [0054]);
measuring other reactions of the another user of the electronic device to the plurality of user interface elements (Yoshikawa; par [0033]); and
determining, by the one or more processors from the other reactions, another user sensory preference reaction score (Yoshikawa; pars [0033]-[0035]).
In regards to claim 9, Yoshikawa teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising associating the another user preference sensory preference score with another dominant sensory profile associated with the another user in the memory of the electronic device (Yoshikawa; pars [0033]-[0035], [0050], [0054]).
In regards to claim 10, Yoshikawa teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising:
modifying, by the one or more processors, one or more other user interface elements configured for presentation on the user interface of the electronic device as a function of the dominant sensory profile associated with the user of the electronic device to create one or more modified user interface elements (Yoshikawa; pars [0038], [0050], [0054], [0075], [0078]); and
presenting, by the one or more processors on the user interface of the electronic device, the one or more modified user interface elements (Yoshikawa; pars [0038], [0050], [0054], [0075], [0078]).
In regards to claim 11, Yoshikawa teaches the method of claim 10, wherein:
the one or more other user interface elements configured for presentation on the user interface of the electronic device comprise informational components comprising text (Yoshikawa; Figs. 14-16); and
the modifying the one or mor other user interface elements to create the one or more modified user interface elements comprises changing the text to enhance a characteristic associated with at least one user sensory preference element and diminish another characteristic associated with at least one other user sensory preference element (Yoshikawa; Figs. 14-16).
In regards to claim 12, Yoshikawa teaches an electronic device, comprising:
a user interface; a memory; one or more sensors; and one or more processors operable with the user interface, the memory, and the one or more sensors (Yoshikawa; Figs. 3, 18);
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine a dominant sensory profile associated with a user and store the dominant sensory profile associated with the user in the memory of the electronic device (Yoshikawa; pars [0033]-[0035], [0050], [0054]).
In regards to claim 13, Yoshikawa teaches the electronic device of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the user interface to present a plurality of user interface elements and determine, using the one or more sensors, reactions of the user in response to presentation of the plurality of user interface elements (Yoshikawa; pars [0033]-[0035]).
In regards to claim 14, Yoshikawa teaches the electronic device of claim 13, wherein each user interface element of the plurality of user interface elements includes components catering to different sensory perceptions from other user interface elements of the plurality of user interface elements (Yoshikawa; pars [0033]-[0035]; Figs. 10, 13).
In regards to claim 15, Yoshikawa teaches the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to modify one or more other user interface elements as a function of the dominant sensory profile associated with the user of the electronic device to create one or more modified user interface elements and, thereafter, cause the user interface to present the one or more modified user interface elements (Yoshikawa; pars [0038], [0050], [0054], [0075], [0078]).
In regards to claim 17, Yoshikawa teaches the electronic device of claim 15, wherein the one or more modified user interface elements comprise text that is different from the plurality of one or more user interface elements (Yoshikawa; Figs. 14-16).
In regards to claim 18, Yoshikawa teaches a method in an electronic device, the method comprising:
presenting, by one or more processors on a user interface, a plurality of user interface elements, wherein each user interface element of the plurality of user interface elements includes components catering to different sensory perceptions from other user interface elements of the plurality of user interface elements (Yoshikawa; pars [0033]-[0035]; Figs. 10, 13);
measuring, by one or more sensors, reactions of a user of the electronic device to the plurality of user interface elements (Yoshikawa; par [0033]);
determining, by the one or more processors from the reactions, a user sensory preference reaction score (Yoshikawa; pars [0033]-[0035]); and
storing the user sensory preference reaction score in a memory of the electronic device (Yoshikawa; pars [0033]-[0035], [0050], [0054]).
In regards to claim 19, Yoshikawa teaches the method of claim 18, further comprising:
after the storing, modifying, by the one or more processors, one or more other user interface elements configured for presentation on the user interface as a function of the user sensory preference reaction score to create a one or more modified user interface elements (Yoshikawa; pars [0038], [0050], [0054], [0075], [0078]); and
presenting, by the one or more processors on the user interface, the one or more modified user interface elements (Yoshikawa; pars [0038], [0050], [0054], [0075], [0078]).
In regards to claim 20, Yoshikawa teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising adjusting, by the one or more processors, the user sensory preference reaction score in response to user input received at the user interface (Yoshikawa; pars [0072], [0079], [0090], [0097]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of Kurisu et al. (US 2023/0004279, hereinafter “Kurisu”), cited by applicant.
In regards to claim 2, Yoshikawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user sensory preference reaction score is determined using: an eye-minded dominance score; an ear-minded dominance score; and a motor-minded dominance score (Yoshikawa; pars [0035], [0051], [0054], [0085], Fig. 7). Yoshikawa teaches sensory dominance scores and further teaches that a user senses smell and taste (Yoshikawa; par [0004]).
Yoshikawa does not explicitly teach the user sensory preference reaction score being determined using a smell-minded dominance score and a taste-minded dominance score.
Kurisu teaches user sensory preference reaction scores determined using a smell-minded score and a taste-minded score (Kurisu; Abstract – determining smells and tastes a user prefers is indicative of smell-minded and taste-minded scores, respectively).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Yoshikawa by incorporating smell and taste-minded dominance scores to provide a user with information more specifically catered to their preferred sense (Yoshikawa; par [0004]).
In regards to claim 16, Yoshikawa teaches the electronic device of claim 15, wherein the one or more modified user interface elements are enhanced as a function of a first combination of a visual appearance preferred by the user of the electronic device, an aural appearance preferred by the user of the electronic device, and a haptic appearance preferred by the user of the electronic device and diminished as a second combination of the visual appearance preferred by the user of the electronic device, the aural appearance preferred by the user of the electronic device, and the haptic appearance preferred by the user of the electronic device (Yoshikawa; Figs. 7, 12, 14-16, par [0085]). Yoshikawa further teaches that a user senses smell and taste (Yoshikawa; par [0004]).
Yoshikawa does not explicitly teach enhancing or diminishing user interface elements as a function of an olfactory appearance and a gustatory appearance preferred by the user of the electronic device.
Kurisu teaches determining an olfactory appearance and a gustatory appearance preferred by a user of an electronic device (Kurisu; Abstract – determining smells and tastes a user prefers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Yoshikawa by incorporating smell and taste preferences to modify the user interface elements to provide a user with information more specifically catered to their preferred sense (Yoshikawa; par [0004]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of Kurisu, further in view of Setlur et al. (US 11,314,786, hereinafter “Setlur”).
In regards to claim 3, Yoshikawa teaches the method of claim 2.
Yoshikawa does not explicitly teach wherein each of the dominance scores is normalized to have a value between one and negative one, inclusive.
Setlur teaches, in the context of expressing sentiments, normalizing values to be within the interval of one and negative one, inclusive (Setlur; col. 16, lines 39-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Yoshikawa by normalizing the scores, as suggested by Setlur, in order to make the scores easier to compare and analyze.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of Johnson et al. (US 2019/0220777, hereinafter “Johnson”), cited by applicant.
In regards to claim 4, Yoshikawa teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the user interface, user input in response to the presenting (Yoshikawa; pars [0050], [0078]-[0079], [0090], [0098]); and
adjusting one or more sensory preference elements of the user sensory preference reaction score as a function of the user input (Yoshikawa; pars [0072], [0079], [0097]).
Yoshikawa does not explicitly teach presenting, by the one or more processors, the user sensory preference reaction score on the user interface.
Johnson teaches presenting sentiment scores on a user interface (Johnson; Fig. 3-5, pars [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Yoshikawa by taking the user sensory preference reaction scores that are determined in Yoshikawa and presenting them to the user, as suggested by Johnson, thereby allowing a user to visualize the scores.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kavita Stanley whose telephone number is (571)272-8352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Cordelia (Dede) Zecher can be reached at 571-272-7771. 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.
/KAVITA STANLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights