SUPPORT PROGRAM, INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, AND PRINTING METHOD

Application No. 18/656,002

• Filed: May 06, 2024
• Priority: Dec 12, 2019 — JP 2019-224713
  • Jul 01, 2020 — continuation of PCTJP2020025804
  • Mar 29, 2021 — continuation of 12/014,094
• Examiner: CHEN, HUO LONG
• Art Unit: 2682
• Tech Center: 2600 — Communications
• Assignee: Brother Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha
• OA Round: 1 (Non-Final)

Office Action

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
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrinegrounded 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 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of the US Patent 12,014,094.
The limitations of the instant claim 1 are substantially identically to claim 1 of the US Patent 12,014,094. Claim 1 of the US Patent 12,014,094 have a narrow invention scope while the invention scope of the instant claim 1 is broader invention scope, but invention scope of the instant claim 1 and claim 1 of the US Patent 12,014,094 are the same. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
With respect to claim 2, which further limits claim 1, the limitations of instant claim 2 are identically to claim 2 of the US Patent 12,014,094.
With respect to claim 3, which further limits claim 1, the limitations of instant claim 3 are identically to claim 3 of the US Patent 12,014,094.
With respect to claim 4, which further limits claim 1, the limitations of instant claim 4 are identically to claim 4 of the US Patent 12,014,094.
With respect to claim 5, which further limits claim 1, the limitations of instant claim 5 are identically to claim 5 of the US Patent 12,014,094.
With respect to claim 6, which further limits claim 6, the limitations of instant claim 5 are identically to claim 6 of the US Patent 12,014,094.
The limitations of the instant claim 7 are substantially identically to claim 7 of the US Patent 12,014,094. Claim 7 of the US Patent 12,014,094 have a narrow invention scope while the invention scope of the instant claim 7 is broader invention scope, but invention scope of the instant claim 7 and claim 7 of the US Patent 12,014,094 are the same. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting.
The limitations of the instant claim 8 are substantially identically to claim 8 of the US Patent 12,014,094. Claim 8 of the US Patent 12,014,094 have a narrow invention scope while the invention scope of the instant claim 8 is broader invention scope, but invention scope of the instant claim 8 and claim 8 of the US Patent 12,014,094 are the same. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is [phone]. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on [phone]. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is [phone]. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682

Prosecution Timeline

• May 06, 2024: Application Filed
• Apr 07, 2026: Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)