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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/10/2025 has been entered.
Claims amended: 1, 9 and 21
Claims canceled: 1
Claims newly added: none
Claims pending: 2-21
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. As amended and argument filed on 08/18/2025 which has overcome the current rejection.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 08/18/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
4. Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11/080,328 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because before a user has initiated an image-based search: obtaining data indicating a current context including at least a geographic location associated with a mobile device, the geographic location being a location at which the mobile device is located, determining, using the data indicating the current context including at least the geographic location associated with the mobile device, that the mobile device is physically located proximate to a predefined, geographic location, in response to determining that the mobile device is physically located proximate to the predefined, geographic location: accessing a repository that associates, for each predefined geographic location of a plurality of predefined geographic locations, a respective image-based search type for the predefined geographic location, and wherein the respective image-based search types define multiple candidate image-based search types that each respectively invoke a search type capability of an image search system that is different from a search type capability invoked by each other candidate image-based search type; obtaining data from the repository, the data indicating a particular image-based search type, from among multiple candidate image-based search types; and providing a user interface including a control for initiating an image-based search of the particular image-based search type. The differences are, the 328 also include identified by a predictive model as likely relevant to the current context including at least the geographic location associated with the mobile device, the identification based on a determination that the geographic location is within a threshold distance of the predefined, geographic location and that the predefined, geographic location is associated with the particular image-based search type and that is identified by the predictive model as likely relevant to the current context including at least the geographic location associated with the mobile device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to remove the additional limitation to arrive the same invention as claimed.
5. Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11/886,495 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application including before a user has initiated an image-based search at a computing device: obtaining data indicating a current context including at least a geographic location associated with the computing device, determining that the computing device is physically located proximate to a predefined, geographic location based on the data indicating a current context, in response to determining that the computing device is physically located proximate to the predefined, geographic location: accessing a repository that associates, for each predefined geographic location of a plurality of predefined geographic locations, a respective image-based search type for the predefined geographic location, and wherein the respective image-based search types define multiple candidate image-based search types that each respectively invoke a search type capability of an image search system that is different from a search type capability invoked by each other candidate image-based search type; determining, based on the repository and the geographic location, a particular image-based search type from the multiple candidate image-based search types, wherein the particular image-based search type is associated with the predefined, geographic location in the repository, and providing a user interface including a control for initiating an image-based search of the particular image-based search type. The differences are the 495 also include the interface comprises a predictive card, wherein the predictive card comprises information generated by a predictive model. Therefore, it would have been obvious to remove the additional limitation to arrive the same invention as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 2-21 will be allowed when applicant(s) has overcome the Obviousness Double Patenting rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 2-21, examiner agreed with applicant argument “the cited references fail to teach or in combination, “a repository that associated, for each predefined location…” filed on 07/15/2025 pages 16-32.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights