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 .
This is a response to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/771,636 filed on 09/30/2024 in which Claims 1- 20 were filed for examination.
This U.S. Patent Application is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/760,587 which is now U.S. Patent No. 12,067,211.
Status of the Claims
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting and Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Examiner Note
The Examiner cites particular columns, line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/12/2024, 01/10/2025 and 07/11/2025 have been entered and considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Cross-reference to related applications par [0001] recites “This is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/760,587 filed on April 30, 2020, which is a U.S. National Stage …”, this section should be amended to indicate that U.S. Patent Application No. 16/760,587 is now U.S. Patent No. 12,067,211.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "…the first task historical box” in line 3 of claim 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 8 and 10 – 17 of U.S. Patent No.12,067,211. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent anticipates all claims of the instant application.
The patent discloses:
1. A mobile terminal (See Claim1, Col. 34 line 27), comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions (See Claim 1, Col. 34 lines 28 – 32) to:
display a first user interface comprising a second user interface of a first application, a second user interface of a second application and a second user interface of a third application (See Claim 1, Col. 34 lines 33 – 37);
receive a first operation for displaying a historical task bar, wherein the historical task bar displays interface information corresponding to recently started application programs and enabling a user to manage the recently started application programs (See Claim 1, Col. 34 lines 38 – 42);
display, in response to the first operation, a third user interface comprising the historical task bar, wherein the historical task bar comprises a first historical task box corresponding to the first user interface, and wherein the first historical task box comprises a fourth user interface of the first application, a fourth user interface of the second application and a fourth user interface of the third application (See Claim 1, Col. 34 lines 43 – 51);
receive a second operation on the first historical task box (See Claim 1, Col. 35 lines 1 – 2); and
display, in response to the second operation, the first user interface (See Claim 1, Col. 35 lines 3 – 4).
2. The mobile terminal of claim 1, wherein the historical task bar further comprises a second historical task box, and wherein the second historical task box corresponds to a fifth user interface comprising a sixth user interface of a fourth application and a seventh user interface of the fourth application (See Claim 1, Col. 34 lines 52 – 56)
.
3. The mobile terminal of claim 1, wherein the historical task bar further comprises a third historical task box, and wherein the third historical task box comprises an eighth user interface of a fifth application (See Claim 1, Col. 34 lines 57 – 58).
4. The mobile terminal of claim 1, wherein a first part of the first user interface comprises the second user interface of the first application and the second user interface of the second application, and wherein a second part of the first user interface comprises the second user interface of the third application (See Claim 2 , Col. 35).
5. The mobile terminal of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
receive a third operation selecting a close button that corresponds to the second user interface of the first application (See Claim 3, Col. 35); and
close, in response to the third operation, the second user interface of the first application (See Claim 3, Col. 35).
6. The mobile terminal of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
receive a fourth operation selecting a full screen button that corresponds to the second user interface of the second application (See Claim 4, Col. 35); and
display, in response to the fourth operation, a full screen user interface of the second application (See Claim 4, Col. 35).
7. The mobile terminal of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to display, in response to a fifth operation performed on a ninth user interface, the first user interface, wherein the ninth user interface comprises a first icon of the first application, a second icon of the second application, and a third icon of the third application, and wherein the fifth operation selects the first icon, the second icon, and the third icon (See Claim 5, Col. 35).
8. The mobile terminal of claim 1, wherein the second user interface of the first application, the second user interface of the second application and the second user interface of the third application are displayed separately without overlap in the first user interface (See Claim 6, Col. 35).
9. The mobile terminal of claim 1, wherein the historical task bar further comprises a second historical task box and a third historical task box, and wherein the first historical task box, the second historical task box, and the third historical task box are displayed separately without overlap in the third user interface (See Claim 7, Col. 35).
10. The mobile terminal of claim 1, wherein the fourth user interface of the first application, the fourth user interface of the second application and the fourth user interface of the third application are displayed separately without overlap in the first task historical box (See Claim 8, Col. 35).
11. A method, implemented by a mobile terminal (See Claim 10, Col. 35 line 53), comprising:
displaying a first user interface comprising a second user interface of a first application, a second user interface of a second application and a second user interface of a third application (See Claim 10, Col. 35 lines 55 – 58);
receiving a first operation for displaying a historical task bar, wherein the historical task bar displays interface information corresponding to recently started application programs and enabling a user to manage the recently started application programs (See Claim 10, Col. 35 lines 59 – 63);
displaying, in response to the first operation, a third user interface comprising the historical task bar, wherein the historical task bar comprises a first historical task box corresponding to the first user interface, and wherein the first historical task box comprises a fourth user interface of the first application, a fourth user interface of the second application and a fourth user interface of the third application (See Claim 10, Col. 35 line 64 – Col. 36 line 4);
receiving a second operation on the first historical task box (See Claim 10, Col. 36 lines 21 – 22); and
displaying, in response to the second operation, the first user interface (See Claim 10, Col. 36 lines 23 – 24).
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the historical task bar further comprises a second historical task box, and wherein the second historical task box corresponds to a fifth user interface comprising a sixth user interface of a fourth application and a seventh user interface of the fourth application (See Claim 10, Col. 36 lines 5 – 10).
13. The method of claim 11, wherein the historical task bar further comprises a third historical task box, and wherein the third historical task box comprises an eighth user interface of a fifth application (See Claim 10, Col. 36 lines 10 – 12).
14. The method of claim 11, wherein a first part of the first user interface comprises the second user interface of the first application and the second user interface of the second application, and wherein a second part of the first user interface comprises the second user interface of the third application (See Claim 11, Col. 36).
15. The method of claim 11, wherein the historical task bar further comprises a second historical task box and a third historical task box, and wherein the first historical task box, the second historical task box, and the third historical task box are displayed separately without overlap in the third user interface (See Claim 12, Col. 36).
16. The method of claim 11, wherein a first size of the second user interface of the first application is smaller than a second size of the second user interface of the third application, wherein a third size of the second user interface of the second application is smaller than a fourth size of the second user interface of the third application (See Claim 13, Col. 36).
17. The method of claim 11, further comprising:
receiving a third operation selecting a close button corresponding to the second user interface of the first application (See Claim 14, Col. 36).; and
closing, in response to the third operation, the second user interface of the first application(See Claim 14, Col. 36)..
18. The method of claim 11, further comprising:
receiving a fourth operation selecting a full screen button corresponding to the second user interface of the second application (See Claim 15, Col. 36); and
displaying, in response to the fourth operation, a full screen user interface of the second application (See Claim 15, Col. 36).
19. The method of claim 11, wherein displaying the first user interface comprises displaying, in response to a fifth operation performed on a ninth user interface, the first user interface, wherein the ninth user interface comprises a first icon of the first application, a second icon of the second application, and a third icon of the third application, and wherein the fifth operation selects the first icon, the second icon, and the third icon (See Claim 16, Col. 36).
20. The method of claim 11, wherein the second user interface of the first application, the second user interface of the second application and the second user interface of the third application are displayed separately without overlap in the first user interface (See Claim 17, Col. 36).
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0124595) (hereinafter, Kim) (cited in IDS dated 07/12/2024) in view of McCann et al. (US 2011/0087982) (hereinafter, McCann) (cited in IDS dated 07/12/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a mobile terminal (See Kim’s Abstract and par 0046), comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions (Kim in par 0209, teaches that the storage unit 2270 stores information regarding the tab windows; and
one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions (Kim in par 0212, teaches that a control unit 2260, and the storage unit 2270 to allow the device 2200 to perform various operations for managing the tab windows. Kim in par 0214, further teaches that the input unit 2210, the group generating unit 2220, the execution unit 2230, the frame changing unit 2240, the output unit 2250, and the control unit 2260 may operate via one processor but are not limited thereto) to:
display a first user interface comprising a second user interface of a first application, a second user interface of a second application and a second user interface of a third application (Kim in par 0050, teaches that the device 2200 outputs a display window including at least one or more objects for executing a plurality of applications on a terminal screen. Kim in par 0118 and Fig. 11A – 11D, further teaches that the execution screens 1110, 1120, 1130, and 1150 of the applications are displayed on a terminal screen. Hereinafter, examples of converting the execution screens 1110, 1120, 1130, and 1150 displayed on the terminal screen to the tab window mode);
receive a first operation for displaying a historical task bar (Kim in par 0064 – 0065 and Fig. 2D, further teaches the window 250 indicating a previously generated application group is displayed on the terminal screen. The user drags and drops the object 220 of the objects included in the display window 210 to a region excluding the display window 210) ;
display, in response to the first operation, a third user interface comprising the historical task bar, wherein the historical task bar comprises a first historical task box corresponding to the first user interface, and wherein the first historical task box comprises a fourth user interface of the first application, a fourth user interface of the second application and a fourth user interface of the third application (Kim in par 0064 – 0065 and Fig. 2D, teaches the tab window 250 indicating a previously generated application group is displayed on the terminal screen. The device 2200 generates an application group including the application corresponding to the selected object 220, and outputs the tab window 260 indicating the generated application group on the terminal screen. Kim in par 0068, further teaches that the device 2200 stores information regarding applications included in the generated application group or locations and sizes of the tab windows 230, 250, and 260 displayed on the terminal screen) – Examiner notes that a user can select the previous generated application group, which corresponds to the historical task box;
receive a second operation on the first historical task box (Kim in par 0069, teaches that when an input that displays the tab windows 230, 250, and 260 is received from the user, the device 2200 displays the tab windows 230, 250, and 260 on the terminal screen by using the stored information regarding the tab windows 230, 250, and 260); and
display, in response to the second operation, the first user interface (Kim in par 0069, teaches that when an input that displays the tab windows 230, 250, and 260 is received from the user, the device 2200 displays the tab windows 230, 250, and 260 on the terminal screen by using the stored information regarding the tab windows 230, 250, and 260) – Examiner notes that Kim teaches the storing the historical application group and can be displayed upon user’s selection.
However, Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the historical task bar displays interface information corresponding to recently started application programs and enabling a user to manage the recently started application programs.
McCann in par 0022, teaches that the application manager 202 identifies favorite activities by automatically determining most frequently used applications based on history data (e.g., history data collected daily, monthly, etc.) and periodically updating the list 208. In addition, the application manager 202 determined the current state of each application and stores this information on the list 208. The current state of an application may be, for example, an active (currently running) state, inactive state. McCann in par 0046 and Fig. 5B – 5C, further teaches that while viewing the GUI 400, the user may decide to switch between active applications. An application switcher is invoked when the user presses designated keyboard keys. All active applications are showed ordered by time of last use. Figures 5B and 5C illustrate an exemplary application switching window 520.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in McCann with the teachings as in Kim to include a workspace management tool in Kim as disclosed in McCann. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively by provide an integrated digital work environment which significantly improves the user experience with respect to visualizing the user current activities, starting new activities, organizing user activities onto different workspaces, and switching between current activities and/or workspaces (See McCann’s par 0020).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim in view of McCann teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Kim further teaches:
wherein the historical task bar further comprises a second historical task box, and wherein the second historical task box corresponds to a fifth user interface comprising a sixth user interface of a fourth application and a seventh user interface of the fourth application (Kim in par 0068, further teaches that the device 2200 stores information regarding applications included in the generated application group or locations and sizes of the tab windows 230, 250, and 260 displayed on the terminal screen – Kim teaches that there are multiple groups of tab windows (230, 250 and 260 etc.) in which one or more different applications are comprised).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim in view of McCann teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Kim further teaches:
wherein the historical task bar further comprises a third historical task box, and wherein the third historical task box comprises an eighth user interface of a fifth application (Kim in par 0068, further teaches that the device 2200 stores information regarding applications included in the generated application group or locations and sizes of the tab windows 230, 250, and 260 displayed on the terminal screen – Kim teaches that there are multiple groups of tab windows (230, 250 and 260 etc.) in which one or more different applications are comprised).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim in view of McCann teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Kim further teaches:
wherein a first part of the first user interface comprises the second user interface of the first application and the second user interface of the second application, and wherein a second part of the first user interface comprises the second user interface of the third application (Kim in par 0167 and Fig. 16B, further teaches that a plurality of applications may be executed among the applications included in the tab window 1610. The device 2200 may split the tab window 1610 and display execution screens 1641, 1642, 1643, and 1644 of the executed applications).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim in view of McCann teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. McCann further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
receive a third operation selecting a close button that corresponds to the second user interface of the first application; and close, in response to the third operation, the second user interface of the first application (McCann in figure 4, discloses a plurality of interfaces each including the icon “x” on the top right corner of the window 416, 418, 420 and 422 to close the respective window).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim in view of McCann teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Kim further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
receive a fourth operation selecting a full screen button that corresponds to the second user interface of the second application; and display, in response to the fourth operation, a full screen user interface of the second application (Kim in par 0187 and Fig. 20A – 20B, further teaches that the device 2200 may display an execution screen of a specific application on the entire terminal screen).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim in view of McCann teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Kim further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to display, in response to a fifth operation performed on a ninth user interface, the first user interface, wherein the ninth user interface comprises a first icon of the first application, a second icon of the second application, and a third icon of the third application, and wherein the fifth operation selects the first icon, the second icon, and the third icon (Kim in par 0058, and Fig. 2A, teaches that the display window 210 is shown as an application tray. The objects (for example, icons) respectively corresponding to the applications installed in a terminal are aligned in the display window 210. Kim in par 0065, further teaches that the user drags and drops the object 220 of the objects included in the display window 210 to a region excluding the display window 210. Thereafter, the device 2200 generates an application group including the application corresponding to the selected object 220, and outputs the tab window 260 indicating the generated application group on the terminal screen).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim in view of McCann teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. McCann further teaches:
wherein the second user interface of the first application, the second user interface of the second application and the second user interface of the third application are displayed separately without overlap in the first user interface (McCann in par 0041 and Fig. 4, teaches that the windowing area 414 displays windows of currently active applications. In particular, area 414 includes windows 416, 418, 420 and 422 associated with applications 408 that have name backlit. The windows 416, 418, 420 and 422 are scaled down versions of the running application windows and they appear in a non-overlapping, tiled array to allow the user to identify and select windows in their running context).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim in view of McCann teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. McCann further teaches:
wherein the historical task bar further comprises a second historical task box and a third historical task box, and wherein the first historical task box, the second historical task box, and the third historical task box are displayed separately without overlap in the third user interface (McCann in par 0041 and Fig. 4, teaches that the windowing area 414 displays windows of currently active applications. In particular, area 414 includes windows 416, 418, 420 and 422 associated with applications 408 that have name backlit. The windows 416, 418, 420 and 422 are scaled down versions of the running application windows and they appear in a non-overlapping, tiled array to allow the user to identify and select windows in their running context).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim in view of McCann teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Kim further teaches:
wherein the fourth user interface of the first application, the fourth user interface of the second application and the fourth user interface of the third application are displayed separately without overlap in the first task historical box (McCann in par 0041 and Fig. 4, teaches that the windowing area 414 displays windows of currently active applications. In particular, area 414 includes windows 416, 418, 420 and 422 associated with applications 408 that have name backlit. The windows 416, 418, 420 and 422 are scaled down versions of the running application windows and they appear in a non-overlapping, tiled array to allow the user to identify and select windows in their running context).
Regarding Claim 11, this claim merely recites a method, implemented by a mobile terminal as similarly recited in Claim 1. Accordingly, Kim in view of McCann discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 11, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, this claim merely recites a method, implemented by a mobile terminal as similarly recited in Claim 2. Accordingly, Kim in view of McCann discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 12, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13, this claim merely recites a method, implemented by a mobile terminal as similarly recited in Claim 3. Accordingly, Kim in view of McCann discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 13, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14, this claim merely recites a method, implemented by a mobile terminal as similarly recited in Claim 4. Accordingly, Kim in view of McCann discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 14, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 15, this claim merely recites a method, implemented by a mobile terminal as similarly recited in Claim 9. Accordingly, Kim in view of McCann discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 15, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 16, Kim in view of McCann teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 11. Kim further teaches:
wherein a first size of the second user interface of the first application is smaller than a second size of the second user interface of the third application, wherein a third size of the second user interface of the second application is smaller than a fourth size of the second user interface of the third application (Kim in par 0179 and Fig. 18A-18C, further teaches that when a plurality of applications are included in the tab window, the user repeatedly performs the operations described with reference to FIGS. 18A and 18B, thereby displaying an execution screen of a desired application on the center of the terminal screen. The user adjusts scroll intensity, tile, and distance, thereby freely adjusting a size of an execution screen of an application. Kim in par 0219, further teaches that the app list manager 2312 sets and manages an icon and a layout of an application group set by the tab set application and sizes of tab windows as a list).
Regarding Claim 17, this claim merely recites a method, implemented by a mobile terminal as similarly recited in Claim 5. Accordingly, Kim in view of McCann discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 17, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 18, this claim merely recites a method, implemented by a mobile terminal as similarly recited in Claim 6. Accordingly, Kim in view of McCann discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 18, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 19, this claim merely recites a method, implemented by a mobile terminal as similarly recited in Claim 7. Accordingly, Kim in view of McCann discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 19, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 20, this claim merely recites a method, implemented by a mobile terminal as similarly recited in Claim 8. Accordingly, Kim in view of McCann discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 20, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 8.
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 ARIEL MERCADO VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1701. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ARIEL MERCADO-VARGAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights