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 .
According to paper filed April 15th 2024, claims 1-24 are pending for examination with a May 6th 2019 priority date under 35 USC §120 & 35 USC §119(e).
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 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,960,701. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the similar features, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
Most of all, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
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 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.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (US 2018/0157452), hereinafter Nelson, and further in view of Murai (US 2018/0088537), hereinafter Murai.
Claim 1
“a computer system configured to communicate with a display device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for” Nelson [0006] discloses “at least one processor and a memory” and Nelson [0081] discloses “a touch sensitive screen”:
“displaying, via the display device, a user interface at a first time of a day, wherein displaying the user interface at the first time of day includes concurrently displaying” Murai Figure 3C depicts a first time of day, e.g. 8 o’clock:
“a first numeral representing a first hour of the first time of day” Murai Figure 3C depicts a first time of day, e.g. 8 o’clock, and Murai [0037] teaches an analog timepiece display mode and a digital timepiece display mode;
“a first background that includes a first appearance, wherein the first background is different from the first numeral, and wherein the first appearance of the first background changes over time to represent a change in a first subunit of time of the first hour as time progresses from the first time of day” Nelson Figure 3A depicts a first background (i.e., 318) and a first appearance (i.e., 314), or vice versa; the first appearance of the first background changes over time to represent a change of time (e.g., a moon image or a moon image with a sun image);
“after displaying the user interface at the first time of day, displaying, via the display device, the user interface at a second time of day that is different from the first time of day, wherein displaying the user interface at the second time of day includes concurrently displaying: a second numeral representing a second hour of the second time of day” Nelson Figure 3A depicts a first time of day and Nelson Figure 3B depicts a second time of day;
“a second background that includes a second appearance, wherein the second appearance is different from the first appearance, wherein the second background is different from the second numeral, and wherein the second background changes over time to represent a change in a second subunit of time of the second hour as time progresses from the second time of day” Nelson Figures 3A-3B depict two different background (i.e., 314) representing changes of the time of day as time progresses.
Nelson and Murai disclose analogous art. Murai is analogous because it is in the field of a control section displaying a plurality of pointer images based on time information acquired from a clock circuit. Nelson does not spell out the “a first numeral representing a first hour of the first time of day” as recited above. The feature is taught in Murai. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate said feature of Murai (Murai [0037]: an analog timepiece display mode and a digital timepiece display mode) into Nelson to enhance its time displaying functions via a dynamic user interface.
Claim 2
“wherein the first subunit of time of the first hour is seconds and the second subunit of time of the second hour is seconds” Murai Figure 2A depicts a hour hand, a minute hand, and a second hand.
Claim 3
“updating the first appearance of the first background over time to represent the change in the first subunit of time of the first hour as time progresses from the first time of day, including: at the first time of day: displaying a first portion of the first background at a first size” Nelson Figure 3B depicts a first portion of the sun and a first portion of the moon when the time of day progresses;
“displaying a second portion of the first background that is different from the first portion of the first background at a second size; and at a third time of day that is after the first time of day: displaying the first portion of the first background at a third size that is different from the first size; and displaying the second portion of the first background at a fourth size that is different from the second size” Murai Figure 3C depicts a first time of day, e.g. 8 o’clock.
Claim 4
“the first portion of the first background is positioned above the second portion of the first background relative to a display orientation of the user interface” Murai Figure 2A depicts a first portion (i.e., the round shaped clock) with a flower-like background, which is above the second portion (i.e., POINTER MOVEMENT AREA);
“the third size of the first portion of the first background is larger than the first size of the first portion of the first background” Murai Figure 2A depicts a third portion (i.e., TIMEPIECE DISPLAY AREA) of the timepiece display, which is larger than the first portion (i.e., the round shaped clock) with a flower like background.
Claim 5
“updating the second appearance of the second background over time to represent the change in the second
subunit of time of the second hour as time progresses from the second time of day, including: at the second time of day: displaying a first portion of the second background at a first size” Nelson Figures 3A & 3B depict a first time of day and a second time of day, each of the time is displayed with different backgrounds;
“displaying a second portion of the second background that is different from the first portion of the second background at a second size; and at a third time of day that is after the second time of day: displaying the first portion of the second background at a third size that is different from the first size; and displaying the second portion of the second background at a fourth size that is different from the second size” Nelson Figure 3C depicts a third time of day with a background image of a full size of sun; from Figure 3A to Figure 3B to Figure 3C, the moon is shown in the full size of the moon in Figure 3A that transits into a partial image of moon and a partial image of sun of Figure 3B when the time progresses into the morning of the day, then in Figure 3C, a full size of the sun shown to indicate day light hours, which progresses later into Figure 3D with a partial sun and a partial moon indicating a night light forthcoming.
Claim 6
“the first portion of the second background is positioned above the second portion of the second background relative to a display orientation of the user interface, and the third size of the first portion of the second background is larger than the first size of the first portion of the second background” Nelson [0004] teaches a rendering of the original watch face GUI is decomposed into multiple image layers of moving and non-moving graphical parts (e.g., ‘sprite graphics’). The image layers are analyzed to determine specific positions, scales or sizes, opacities, colors, rotations, whether parts are visible or invisible at different times”.
Claim 7
“displaying, within the first hour of the first time of day, an ongoing amination of a change in the first appearance of the first background over time to represent the change in the first subunit of time of the first hour as time progresses from the first time of day” Murai [0041] teaches an image of a flower bud that gradually blooms in conjunction with the movement of a minute hand or an hour hand;
“displaying, within the second hour of the second time of day, an ongoing animation of a change the second appearance of the second background over time to represent the change in the second subunit of time of the second hour as time progresses from the second time of day” Murai [0041] teaches an image of a flower bud that gradually blooms in conjunction with the movement of a minute hand or an hour hand.
Claim 8
“an appearance of the first numeral representing the first hour of the first time of day does not change over time, and an appearance of the second numeral representing the second hour of the second time of day does not change over time” Nelson [0064] teaches displaying an image of each of clock numerals 312 and background 310 as static images that do not change position or rotation with changes in time.
Claims 9-16
Claims 9-16 are rejected for the similar rationale given for claims 1-8 respectively.
Claims 17-24
Claims 17-24 are rejected for the similar rationale given for claims 1-8 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUAY HO whose telephone number is (571) 272-6088; RightFax number is (571) 273-6088. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, David Yi can be reached on 571-270-7519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
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.
/Ruay Ho/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126